Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Transport Studies (London)

Ms. Abbott: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the different studies he has sponsored into transport proposals and problems in London; and what is their expected final cost.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Paul Channon): As the list is a long one, I shall arrange for the information to be published in the Official Report.

Ms. Abbott: Does the Secretary of State agree that there has been considerable criticism of the reports by professional organisations, including the Institution of Civil Engineers? Will he accept that, far from hatching plans to build more roads, in London, he should be considering the real concerns of the population of London—homes before roads, and safety before profit?

Mr. Channon: I think that the hon. Lady is referring to the assessment studies that are taking place in some parts of the capital. My aim for transport in London in general is to promote efficient and attractive public transport, better parking controls, new technology, trunk roads to take traffic round London and to support local authorities' road programmes. I do not think that anything will cut against the general thrust of that policy.

Mr. Higgins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that traffic problems in London were much better dealt with when they came under the direct authority of the Department of Transport? Given the real problems arising from bus lanes, coaches parking on roads and the appalling so-called traffic management schemes that were introduced at the Aldwych by the GLC, is it not high time that my right hon. Friend resumed responsibility for London transport?

Mr. Channon: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his constructive suggestion. Unfortunately, to implement it would require primary legislation. I have a suspicion that it would not exactly be non-controversial and might be rather difficult to get through the House. I have some sympathy, however, with what my right hon. Friend says.

Mr. Fraser: Does the Secretary of State travel on public transport in London? If so, does he not realise that massive public investment, without greed as a motive, is necessary if London is not to grind to a halt?

Mr. Channon: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the need for massive investment. I am sure that he has noted with satisfaction the massive investment that has been provided under this Government, both for London Underground and British Rail. In real terms, the investment has been considerably higher than anything that was achieved when he and his right hon. and hon. Friends had anything to do with these matters.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that unless public and private transport continue to go through London at an adequate pace, industry will come to a stop, jobs will be lost and the entire metropolis will grind to a halt? Will he undertake to ensure that every measure possible is taken to get transport moving more quickly?

Mr. Channon: I shall do my best to achieve that. I am sure my hon. Friend agrees that, if we are to achieve what he has in mind, it is essential to provide better public transport in London. Also, I am sure he welcomes the fact that investment in London Underground is now 60 per cent. higher in real terms than it ever was under the GLC.

Mr. Prescott: Is the Secretary of State aware that, following various studies on safety within the London Transport system, reports continue to be made on fires, escalator breakdowns and inadequate safety procedures? Will he justify to the House his view, which was expressed to me in a letter, that an early debate on the Fennell report is not necessary, because of "the lengthy exchanges" that took place on the day of the statement on the report? Does he accept that the public will see this as a gross dereliction of his responsibilities, and will he reconsider?

Mr. Channon: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to have a debate on the issue, he has every opportunity to call for one. Such a debate in Government time is largely a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. The House will know from what I said in my statement, which has been widely commented on, that every conceivable effort is being made to improve safety within the London Underground system. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman welcomes, as I do, the vast sums that are being expended on safety on London Underground. If the Opposition want a debate, the remedy is in their hands.

The information is as follows:

Current studies into transport issues in London and estimated cost



£


1. The Department of Transport is currently sponsoring the following studies into transport issues in London:


Stage 2 of the London Assessment Studies
4 million


Central London Rail Study with BR and LRT
300,000


A4/M4 Corridor Study
200,000


Trunk Road Signing Review
340,000


Development of Traffic Management and Accident Prevention Measures
1·3 million


Improvement and Enhancement of London Transportation Study Model
1 million


Company Assisted Travel
125,000

Authority


2. The following studies in which the Department has an interest are also in progress:


Docklands Public Transport Study
LRT/LDDC


Second Channel Tunnel Terminal
BR

3. The Department has also committed £186,000 to studies commissioned by Westminster City Council into ways of improving the environment and traffic conditions in Parliament Square.

Accident Statistics

Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give figures for the number of fatal accidents involving heavy lorries for the last year for which figures are available.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley): In 1987, 910 people were killed in the 776 accidents involving heavy goods vehicles. Fuller details will be published shortly in the casualty report "Road Accidents, Great Britain". Heavy goods vehicles are less likely to be involved in crashes, but more likely to be associated with fatalities.

Mr. Mullin: Is not the simplest way to reduce the number of people killed by heavy lorries to encourage freight to travel by rail again, or is that an ideologically unsound answer to a very serious problem?

Mr. Bottomley: That is a partial answer. One of the benefits of the Channel tunnel is that there will be a greater relative movement of freight by the railways as journeys become longer. However, the truth remains that, whether we are talking about cars, lorries or motor bikes, people are driving too close, too fast and with too little regard for others. It is no good my claiming that our casualty rates are improving, when I still have to give figures such as those that I have given today.

Mr. Gregory: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the major causes of those accidents is our very low tyre regulations in comparison with the rest of the EC? Will my hon. Friend consider carefully the possibility of our moving towards the EC draft directive, which states that tyre depth covers the whole of the tyre rather than just 75 per cent.?

Mr. Bottomley: My answer is no to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, and no to the second part. The Department and I have said that if anyone produces scientific evidence that the tread regulations are leading to a greater number of casualties, we will look at that evidence. In most cases Europe should be copying us, rather than the other way round.

M1 (Traffic Congestion)

Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make a statement on new measures to relieve traffic congestion on the M1 motorway.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The opening of the M40 extension from Oxford to Birmingham will bring relief to the Ml between London and the M6. In addition, we are planning improvements to junction 1, a climbing lane at junction 9 and widening between junctions 23A and 24.

Mr. Janner: What will the Minister do to relieve the additional congestion which his announced measures will undoubtedly bring? Does he not realise that travellers on the M1 are afflicted by chronic, disgraceful and dangerous congestion, which leads to delays? In particular, will he please take steps to alleviate the congestion at the exit from the M1 at the city of Leicester?

Mr. Bottomley: My answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman's point is yes and we aim to provide traffic signals at junction 21 as a matter of urgency. With regard to his first point, the hon. and learned gentleman was a supporter of a Labour Government who, between 1974 and 1979, exactly halved spending on new national roads in real terms.

Mr. Marlow: As the only time that one can assess the journey time on the M1 these days is at the time of day when no one actually wants to travel on the M1, and as at any other time of the day one is beset by chronic congestion, could my hon. Friend, instead of saying that it is a terrible situation and no doubt the M40 will improve the situation, actually ask the Government, either to reduce economic growth so that we have less traffic on the road or, if he does not want to do that, produce the roads so that we can drive down them? We do not have them at the moment. Will he take whatever powers are necessary and get on with it?

Mr. Bottomley: I think that this is one of the occasions when I say that I do not know. I shall consider what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Tony Banks: What is the point of relieving traffic congestion on the M1 if cars just get into London quicker and then run into all the problems that we discussed in response to the first question today? Surely it is about time that the Minister realised that there is no coherent transport policy in his Department. Frankly, the Government Front Bench is in as much of a shambles as transport in our capital city.

Mr. Bottomley: I believe that the hon. Gentleman might discover from the next question that the M1 does more than feed commuter traffic into London. This is a far more serious issue than the hon. Gentleman has ever shown any sign of being aware of.

Mr. Madel: When will repairs to junction 8 by Hemel Hempstead be completed? At present, they are causing great chaos. Once we have dealt with junction 8, can we look forward to a period of no repairs on the M1 between Bedfordshire and London for a reasonable space of time?

Mr. Bottomley: The answer to my hon. Friend's first question is early December. In response to his second point, yes, we can look forward to that, but because so much of the road reconstruction work was not carried out under the previous Labour Government, we are having to catch up.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Does the Minister still subscribe to the departmental view that motorists must accept that journeys will not get quicker, but, if anything, become worse? That is what his Department says. Does he accept that the travelling public are heartily sick of congestion on the motorways and of ministerial excuses? Does he also accept that the idea of a good card fast lane for executives is ridiculous? The idea of means-testing motorways could come only from the present Government. Let us have some real planning for both public and private transport.

Mr. Bottomley: If planning is anything like that of the last Labour Government we shall not get very far very fast. Spending on new national roads rose by 30 per cent. in real terms in the first nine years of this Government, and is now planned to increase by another 20 per cent. If the thinness


of the Opposition's arguments needs to be hidden behind the views of the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd), the sooner that he gives way to his hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) as transport spokesman, the better.

Mr. Tredinnick: Is my hon. Friend aware of the chaos that gripped the midlands motorway system on Friday? Will he now consider the possibility of a second M1—an Ml-super—which could be funded by the private sector?

Mr. Bottomley: Obviously, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked the Department to review the motorway and trunk road network, and we shall be doing that. It would be nice to be able to get rid of more of the congestion between the cities, but let me say to those who were held up on Friday—or have been held up on other occasions—that it is necessary to get the right perspective. I am fed up with reading newspaper reports with such headlines as:
Death Crash Causes Rush Hour Chaos".
We should be aware that often we are held up because another human being has lost his life in a road accident.

Journey Times

Mr. Hardy: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his current estimate of the time it takes a responsible motorist to drive during the day from Westminster to south Yorkshire on the Al; and how much this has changed relative to the estimated time of such a journey 10 years ago.

Mr. Bottomley: This information is not available.
We have steadily improved the A1 and plan further improvements.

Mr. Hardy: Does the Minister accept that considerable and increasing stretches of road for considerable and increasing periods resemble car parks rather than major arterial routes? Does he accept that the answer does not lie in delving into quite ancient history to reproduce the tollbooth and the turnpike?

Mr. Bottomley: I am not aware that the toll booth and the turnpike have been appearing, except on some of our estuarial crossings. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, we have not closed our minds to the possibility of using private finance. Over the past 10 years many journeys in many parts of the country have become faster, more reliable and less congested. If people will start looking at the bypass programme—both the completed programmes and those that are continuing now—and at the 850 extra miles of road, they will see the benefits. If the hon. Gentleman wishes me to name one, let me name Okehampton.

Sir Anthony Grant: Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the factors affecting the time that it takes to travel from Westminster to Yorkshire on the Al is the difficulty of driving through the extremely dangerous section that runs through my constituency, in which there have been some horrific accidents? When will my hon. Friend and the Department respond to the many representations made by me, and by Cambridgeshire county council, asking for something to be done about this horror spot?

Mr. Bottomley: We are doing what we can in Cambridgeshire, as well as in Bedfordshire and Nottinghamshire. I hope that local people will support

rather than oppose some of the minor works closing gaps. We shall also do what we can to get on with grade separation.

Ms. Armstrong: Is the Minister aware that his answers to me during the last Transport questions on the Al caused some confusion in the region? Can we now confidently look forward to the development of a three-lane motorway from the A1, which would then be able to carry properly the volume of traffic that it is now trying unsuccessfully to carry?

Mr. Bottomley: That is our intention. It is one of the reasons why we are concentrating on the A1 rather than going for an east coast motorway. Perhaps the best thing that I can do is write to the hon. Lady, so that there will be no confusion.

Road Surfaces (Coaches)

Mr. Yeo: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received regarding the danger to road surfaces caused by passenger coaches.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: We have received no formal representations.
Less than 2 per cent. of road wear and tear on motorways in the United Kingdom is attributable to buses and coaches, and some 8 per cent. of road wear and tear to all United Kingdom roads.

Mr. Yeo: As wear and tear caused by passenger coaches is clearly much greater than that caused by ordinary passenger cars, does my hon. Friend agree that it is utterly ridiculous that the licence fee for coaches is less than that for private motor cars? That prevents any fair competition between rail and road. British Rail is expected to make a contribution to costs, but under present policies passenger coaches are not.

Mr. Bottomley: I think that these are issues that the Government should keep under review.

Mr. Adley: With respect, that answer is only half good enough. There were some useful side effects of coach deregulation, but the Metropolitan police have described the situation in London caused by coach deregulation as horrendous. Vehicle excise duty for a 53-seater coach is less than that for a Fiat Panda. Coaches park anywhere and pay nothing for it. They leave their engines running and cause major pollution. Will my hon. Friend review the Act that governs deregulation, not with the idea of scrapping it, but with a view of returning to the London boroughs the right to designate coach routes in London?

Mr. Bottomley: That is going slightly wide of the question, but it may be that these issues ought to be considered in some other way and in some other place.

Manchester Airport Rail Link

Mr. Favell: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received on the proposed Manchester airport rail link.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo): Officers of the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority and Executive discussed the matter with my officials on 1 November. Ministers will be happy to approve such an investment if there is a sound case.

Mr. Favell: Manchester airport is the fastest growing airport in Europe. Is not the pedestrian way in which British Rail is reacting to this wonderful investment opportunity typical of a nationalised concern? Is my hon. Friend, for whom I have the greatest regard, able to assure me that Manchester airport will be privatised as quickly as possible, so that this kind of thing is not repeated in the future?

Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend knows that the privatisation of British Rail is under consideration. If, however, the discussions go well, my hon. Friend should not have to wait for privatisation, if that is to occur. If there is a strong commercial case for it, as he believes, I shall be happy to approve the investment.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: Is my hon. Friend aware of how important economically Manchester international airport is to the north-west region? Is he aware that today important talks are taking place in America about the prospects of more inter-continental flights into and out of Manchester airport that would be of great help to us? May I have his assurance that the Department is doing all that it can? If the flights into Manchester airport are approved, the rail link will be of even greater importance.

Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the discussions. United Kingdom and United States negotiators are meeting today and tomorrow to discuss these matters. We had hoped to be able to bring the discussions to a conclusion this week, but apparently the United States Government have said that they believe that the two teams may need to meet again, perhaps in December. We shall continue to press for progress to be made. Final agreement will depend partly on whether the United States Government are prepared to be flexible and are anxious to press for progress.

Mr. Snape: Is it not strange that the rail link into Stansted airport, which carries a fraction of the traffic carried at Manchester, has already commenced? Despite years of debate in the House, no work has yet been done on a rail link to Manchester airport. What has happened to the proposals? Have they been put forward for ministerial approval, and if not, why not?

Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that no work has been done on the rail link. An enormous amount of work has been done. I expect proposals to be put to me fairly soon, but they have not yet come before me. We are waiting for advice on the extent to which the additional revenue on the British Rail network will be offset by costs incurred in earning that revenue on the network. We shall consider the possible private sector role. We shall ask British Rail for a statement of its investment case. We shall also ask for a joint statement by the Passenger Transport Executive, the Passenger Transport Authority, British Rail and the airport on how the costs are to be shared. I believe that we are making good progress on all those matters.

Road Schemes (Finance)

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many road schemes, under construction or planned, are being financed with private money.

Mr. Portillo: The privately financed Dartford-Thurrock crossing is now under construction. The private sector will have the opportunity to finance a second crossing of the River Severn in the forthcoming competition. Since April 1986 agreements have been made with private sector firms to contribute to the funding of 48 trunk road schemes. Local highway authorities are also entering into agreements with the private sector to finance a large number of local road schemes.

Mr. Mitchell: Is my hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members believe that there is a need for greater private sector involvement in road building and road operation, probably through the use of tolls, as a means of meeting the massive difficulties in building up the road infrastructure that is now needed, as well as meeting the massive demand for better roads?

Mr. Portillo: I share my hon. Friend's belief that there is great potential for the wider use of private sector funding to improve the efficiency of road building and potentially in helping to meet the public demand for roads through schemes that would not be built under the public sector programme. I recognise that such schemes might need to be funded by tolls.

Mrs. Ray Michie: Is the Minister aware that in Spain, where privatised roads have been greatly encouraged, the number of accidents on the parallel public roads has increased enormously? Does the Minister agree that privatised roads in this country would not solve our traffic problems in any way?

Mr. Portillo: I should like to investigate the evidence that the hon. Lady has put forward because many other factors may be involved. Of course I am keen that roads built in the private sector should be built to the same safety standards as those in the public sector. That goes without saying.

Mr. Baldry: Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity to deny any suggestion that the M40 extension may be tolled, as suggested by Tarmac? Will he also take the opportunity to confirm a suggestion in The Times today, which seemed to be based on a reasonably authoritative leak, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will announce in the new year that the M40 will be three lanes throughout? I am sure that the House would like that to be confirmed.

Mr. Portillo: We had better wait until the new year to confirm what my right hon. Friend may have to say. I believe that the proposal from Tarmac was made by an individual in the company. Nobody has offered money for the M40 to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Mr. Prescott: Can the Minister confirm that British road expenditure, expressed as a percentage of the vehicle excise duty collected, has declined from 35 per cent. under the Labour Government to 25 per cent. now, which is the lowest in Europe? Does he accept that if the Government had maintained the same proportion of taxation expenditure on roads as the Labour Government we could have spent £2 billion more on our inadequate roads, rather than on funding tax cuts for the wealthy?

Mr. Portillo: Road spending this year is 30 per cent. higher than in the last year of the Labour Government.

A38 (Saltash-Trerulefoot)

Mr. Robert Hicks: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will include the A38 trunk road improvement Saltash-Trerulefoot section in the 1992 to 1994 roads programmes.

Mr. Channon: This scheme will receive careful consideration when the road programme is reviewed next spring.

Mr. Hicks: Is my right hon. Friend aware that with the opening of the Saltash bypass, which he kindly undertook in September, in theory one can now drive, without changing gear, between Glasgow or London and Saltash along motorway or dual carriageway, but that one then hits a most unsatisfactory first-class cart track of eight or nine miles which bisects two villages? My right hon. Friend cannot agree that that is either satisfactory or sensible.

Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend was kind enough to take me along that particular section of road and I was deeply impressed by what he showed me. I shall keep the matter very much in mind. As usual, my hon. Friend is proving a powerful advocate for his constituents.

Channel Tunnel

Mr. Gill: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration he has given to the siting of one of the proposed Channel tunnel terminals to the north of central London.

Mr. Portillo: The siting of Channel tunnel rail terminals is a matter for British Rail, which has suggested King's Cross, Stratford or White City as possible sites.

Mr. Gill: I appreciate that the decision must rest with the commercial undertaking—in this case, British Rail. However, will my hon. Friend use his considerable influence to encourage British Rail to look at the possibility of using the cheaper and more extensive sites available to it to the north of central London? Will he also seek to remind British Rail of the folly of bringing into central London one more passenger than necessary, bearing in mind the considerable congestion that already exists in the metropolis, which is bordering on paralysis? Will he further consider that by encouraging British Rail to choose a site away from central London he would considerably assist the spread of prosperity to the regions beyond the south-east, including Scotland and the Principality of Wales?

Mr. Portillo: I am as keen as my hon. Friend to ensure that the advantages and benefits of the Channel tunnel extend to every region. Ideally, the terminal site that is chosen must offer services and easy interchange to the regions. However, my hon. Friend must recognise that many people want to travel from the centre of Paris or Brussels to the heart of London and the terminal must cater for them, too.

Mr. Pike: Does the Minister recognise that the second largest concentration of population in the country lies in the belt from the Mersey to the Humber, and that to enable people to travel in the best possible way we need a terminal in the north-west, which could serve both those regions and be an advantage not only to them, but to London, by relieving congestion there?

Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman knows that section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 requires British Rail to come forward with plans by the end of next year for the freight and passenger services that it proposes to put in place in the regions. Discussions are now taking place through working parties in every region and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to make his point of view known to those working parties.

Mr. Hind: Does my hon. Friend consider that building terminals at, for example, Manchester and Liverpool, and using route four, which was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) in his excellent magazine "Tunnel Vision", will take an awful lot of traffic out of the centre of London and straight into the tunnel and thus deal with the problem that my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) has mentioned?

Mr. Portillo: I read "Tunnel Vision" with great interest. I hope that my hon. Friend the author will pursue those proposals with British Rail. It will be for him to convince British Rail that that route makes the best possible sense.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: What role is the Department playing in ensuring that British Rail does not concentrate all its efforts on the golden triangle in the south-east? Is the Department trying to use its influence to persuade British Rail that it should electrify north of the central belt in Scotland to ensure that the Grampian region and the Highlands and Islands are not disadvantaged?

Mr. Portillo: I do not believe that electrification is the crucial issue for freight services. However, we have written into the Channel Tunnel Act the requirement that British Rail should bring forward its proposals for the regions for both freight and passenger traffic. I look forward, as I am sure does the hon. Lady, to those proposals being made by the end of next year.

Road Building

Mr. Devlin: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many new road schemes will be started in 1989.

Mr. Channon: About 40.

Mr. Devlin: In view of the high premium that roads in the north-east will have in the run-up to 1992, will my right hon. Friend tell me whether included in the number for announcement next year are the Stockton south spine road, the A167 Middleton St. George bypass and the three-lane motorway scheme to replace the A1, which is currently effecting a wall of congestion between the north-east of England and the rest of the country?

Mr. Channon: I had better write to my hon. Friend on some of the more detailed points. I am strongly in favour of improving road links to the north and hope to start the Woolsington bypass in the north-east and to make improvements in north Yorkshire. With the extra amount of money available for road expenditure, I am looking forward to extensive improvements to the Al, especially in Yorkshire, and to a general review of the whole road programme. I shall bear what my hon. Friend has said in mind.

Mr. Haynes: Is the Secretary of State aware that I am a cyclist, that there are a great many of us in the Chamber


right now and that we are shocked and appalled by the fact that none of the new roads provided in the past and none of those proposed for the future give proper consideration to cyclists? I want to know what he is going to do about that.

Mr. Channon: In conjunction with my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for roads, I shall consider what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I am sure that we shall be able to do everything that he wants.

Mr. Moate: What is my right hon. Friend doing to speed up the decision-making and planning processes involved in new road schemes? Does he accept that, compared with the speed of industrial and economic change today, and with the practice of our competitors on the continent, our present processes are painfully and unacceptably slow?

Mr. Channon: Practice varies in different parts of the continent and in some places the processes are considerably slower even than those of the British system. Of course, we must have a system to preserve people's democratic rights and the planning procedures. However, I am working on improvements to the internal mechanisms of the Department, which I hope will ensure a significant speeding up of the present procedures.

Mr. Clelland: Does the Secretary of State's programme include the completion of improvements to the A69 between Carlisle and Newcastle? If not, when can we expect the improvements to be completed?

Mr. Channon: There are improvements in the programme, but I do not think that all the possible improvements are included. Again, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman. He will be pleased with the progress on the Newcastle bypass.

Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the progress of the current road building programme in the north-west.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Seven major motorway and trunk road construction contracts are currently under way with a total value of around £100 million.
Non-trunk road schemes are the responsibility of the region's 18 local highway authorities.

Mr. Thurnham: Bearing in mind the congestion on roads in the north of my constituency, will my hon. Friend examine the need to designate as a trunk road the A666, which links with the M61? What is he doing to improve the dreadfully designed junction of the M61 with the M6?

Mr. Bottomley: I am aware of the junction to which my hon. Friend draws attention. We have had consultants look at it. We are not likely to trunk the A666 in the short term, partly because we are giving transport supplementary grant for some of the improvements to it.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Why is the construction of the M66 in my constituency being delayed? Why has the completion date slipped by almost six months? When does the Minister expect the Denton to Hollinwood section to be completed? It would do a great deal to relieve the horrific congestion on the east side of Manchester.

Mr. Bottomley: Our aim, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, is to ensure that the statutory procedures are completed properly, but without undue

delay and to ensure that we can spend the money so that work can be completed. I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's question and give a precise date for when the road will be finished.

Mr. Leigh: Will my hon. Friend consider the many requests being put to him by Humberside councils and Lincolnshire county council for an extension of the M11 to the Humber bridge and then northwards to York? The problems on the Al are the result of overloading. The whole of the east midlands would benefit from an extension of the M11.

Mr. Bottomley: Taking the needs of the east midlands and the north-east together, it is right to continue with improvements to the A1, which is what I said earlier to the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong). When we have done that, we may well consider what further can be done.

London Regional Transport

Mr. Spearing: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what financial objectives he has given to London Regional Transport since 20 July 1984.

Mr. Channon: Targets for external finance have been set annually in the public expenditure surveys. I hope to agree new objectives with the chairman of LRT shortly.

Mr. Spearing: Does the Secretary of State recall that his Department's standing instructions, issued by a former Secretary of State, are to cut support by £95 million a year and to keep fares level? Is he aware that the withdrawal of buses from West Ham garage last week was the result of new schedules which require drivers to work longer hours and cover more miles, putting their health and the safety of passengers at risk? Is not a change of the instructions overdue? How is it that, although the instructions say that fares in London should remain more or less stable, we now have increased fares—increased ahead of the cost of living—and reduced safety standards? Will the right hon. Gentleman change the instructions very soon?

Mr. Channon: I am about, I hope in the not-too-distant future, to publish new objectives for London Regional Transport. The hon. Gentleman's description of the 1984 objectives was a little colourful. The objectives refer to LRT's statutory duties, which include safety, and make it clear that they supplement the board's statutory duties. The board could not override those statutory duties. I shall see that LRT considers the hon. Gentleman's detailed point carefully.

Mr. Squire: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it remains an objective of the Government to maximise the use of public transport in London and that, since 1984, there has been a welcome increase in the use of London transport and in the provision of services, particularly on the Underground?

Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend is right on both counts. The increase has been matched by an enormous increase in investment in London Underground, which will increase still further.

British Transport Police

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration he is giving to the future of the British Transport police under privatisation proposals.

Mr. Portillo: Should BR he privatised at some date in the future, the implications for the British Transport police would have to be considered.

Mr. Dalyell: How? In what detail? When?

Mr. Portillo: The matter does not arise yet, but the hon. Gentleman realises that if there is a change in the ownership of British Rail, the question about the British transport police will arise. We shall consider that if there is to be a change in the ownership of British Rail.

Light Rail Projects

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many light rail projects which are privately funded, or partly privately funded, are planned.

Mr. Portillo: There are plans for private sector participation in light rail projects in London's docklands, in Manchester and in Bristol. Other possibilities are in the pipeline.

Mr. Bennett: As most other European countries have had light rail or tramway systems for many years, will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the authorities which are now considering such a system? Will he say which other local authorities are considering private finance?

Mr. Portillo: Yes, I congratulate local authorities which are considering such systems and private sector interests which are also considering them. Several projects are in the pipeline and among those that spring to mind are those in west Yorkshire and the west midlands, where both passenger transport executives have made it clear that they are interested in private finance.

Kingsferry Bridge

Mr. Moate: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are his latest figures for peak traffic volumes on the Kingferry bridge, on the A429 to Sheerness.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Average weekday flows for the first nine months of this year were about 1,870 for both morning and evening peak hours.

Mr. Moate: Does my hon. Friend agree that the present traffic flows make it abundantly clear that a full dual carriageway is justified? Bearing in mind that this road is a single carriageway over a lifting bridge that rises thousands of times a year and leads to one of the largest ports of the United Kingdom, will he tell me when we may get our dual carriageway and second crossing?

Mr. Bottomley: No, but as soon as possible. I have been along the road and I think that it is appalling.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

Cathedrals (Staff Costs)

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what representations the Church Commissioners have received about the staff costs associated with the maintenance of cathedrals.

Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, Representing Church Commissioners): The commissioners have received one request in the past year for increased help towards the staff costs of a cathedral. It will be considered in the new year in the context of the distribution of the commissioners' income for 1990–91.

Mr. Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that our cathedrals are part of our aesthetic, spiritual and cultural heritage? Does he agree also that it is an absolute scandal that the authorities of Hereford cathedral are having to consider selling one of their great legacies to finance its continued maintenance? Does he further agree that, as the Government are financing the maintenance of historic churches, more public funds should be made available for the maintenance of our cathedrals, which do so much to encourage the tourist trade?

Mr. Alison: It is a little premature to talk of scandal in the context of the sale of the map. That would arise only if the authorities were forced to sell it. At present, consideration is being given to selling it, but the public debate and widespread general interest generated by the proposal may result in the sale not having to take place.

Mr. Frank Field: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that an increasing amount of property is sold on a time share basis? Could not such a principle be applied to Mappa Mundi? In particular, if the time share were limited to a certain period, would that not raise the necessary funds and ensure that Mappa Mundi stayed at the cathedral while the cathedral sorted out its long-term finances?

Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman has made a helpful and constructive proposal. The cathedral authorities in Hereford tried to negotiate with the Government and other national bodies and istitutions with a view to selling the entire collection of treasures in Hereford cathedral to the nation at a preferential price on condition that it remained in situ. Unfortunately, those negotiations were unsuccessful.

Mr. Cormack: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those remarks have not been substantiated in all quarters and that there seems to be some dispute about precisely what was done and when? Will he, with his commissioner colleagues, take an initiative and call together the various interested parties to ensure that the map remains in situ and the cathedral is helped?

Mr. Alison: I shall certainly consider whether an initiative by the commissioners would be helpful, although a large number of people privately and in public positions are only too anxious to secure the objective that my hon. Friend mentioned. He will be aware that the Church Commissioners already give over £100,000 a year to Hereford cathedral.

Church Renovation (Inner Cities)

Mr. Alton: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what assistance is available to parishes in the inner cities to enable church renovation to be undertaken.

Mr. Alison: In certain cases assistance for inner city parishes may be sought from the diocese, which can seek grants, for instance, from the church urban fund, but those funds are limited. Help may also be available from the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, local authorities, national and local trusts and charities. I have placed a list of grant-making bodies compiled by the Council for the Care of Churches in the Library of the House.

Mr. Alton: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for going to that trouble. Does he agree that it would be in line with the spirit of the "Faith in the Cities" report if more funding could be made available to churches in inner cities such as Liverpool, where churches are having to consider selling local variants of the Mappa Mundi? One church in my constituency is considering selling a prize piece of stained glass to try to pay for a crumbling Victorian edifice. Does he agree that that is an unfortunate position in which to place churches, and that additional assistance is needed?

Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government can provide help in maintaining the fabric of individual parish churches, but not cathedrals. The church urban fund is generating a huge amount of voluntary giving, although there is always more to be spent than the sums available. The Church Commissioners would have been delighted to give more than the £1 million a year that they give to the church urban fund, were it not for the priority that we have to give to clergy pensions and stipends. I believe that an enormous amount of ground is still to be made and I would encourage the hon. Gentleman and my fellow commissioners to do everything possible to encourage voluntary giving for inner city parishes.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

Meeting

Mr. Allen: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what was discussed at the Public Accounts Commission's last meeting.

Sir Peter Hordern (The Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission): The Commission's last formal meeting was held on Tuesday 25 October, when among the subjects considered were the National Audit Office's appropriation account for 1987–88, and its Vote on account for 1989–90, and the salaries of the C and AG and the C and A-G for Northern Ireland. In addition, four members of the Commission paid an informal visit to the Northern Ireland Audit Office on 1 November.

Mr. Allen: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his reply. Will he elaborate a little more on the status of the C and A-G for Northern Ireland? Obviously, the Public Accounts Commission and a number of hon. Members are

extremely concerned about the status and salary of the C and A-G for Northern Ireland. Did the Commission have any further thoughts on that?

Sir Peter Hordern: The Commission has considered these matters on many occasions, particularly in our report issued in July. However, we have made no further progress in increasing the Northern Ireland Comptroller and Auditor-General's salary. Indeed, his position is somewhat worse than originally intended as he is not due to receive the merit awards that are available to other permanent heads of other Departments in Northern Ireland. It is a very regrettable affair.

Mr. Cohen: At its next meeting, will the Public Accounts Commission give some consideration to what should happen to Ministers of the Crown who cost the taxpayers millions of pounds in public money in neglect, for example, over the sale of the Royal Ordnance factories, when the Ministers who were to blame have subsequently moved on? Should they not be brought to account—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can answer questions for which he has no responsibility.

Sir Peter Hordern: It is a very interesting question but, alas, it is not for me.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

National and Historic Treasures

Mr. Colin Shepherd: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, if the Church Commissioners have any plans to seek responsibilities in respect of treasures of national and historic significance held in cathedrals in England.

Mr. Alison: No, Sir. This is a matter for the cathedrals. However, the General Synod has recently given general approval to a draft Care of Cathedrals Measure which makes certain provisions in this area.

Mr. Shepherd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the citizens of Hereford and the people of the Hereford diocese are absolutely devastated at the prospects facing the Mappa Mundi and Hereford cathedral? Is he aware that although the Care of Cathedrals Measure does in some way set out a mechanism for exercising a veto on moves such as are contemplated by the dean and chapter of Hereford, it in no way constitutes a constructive proposal for solving such problems? Does he not feel that the Church Commissioners have a positive input to make at least in establishing the mechanisms by which deans and chapters of cathedrals under threat may realise as much as possible of their assets without selling them—that is, by getting into marketing?

Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend knows that the Church Commissioners have no direct responsibility for the maintenance of cathedrals other than through the considerable grants given for the stipends of certain cathedral staff. My hon. Friend also knows that the controversy and publicity over the Mappa Mundi, which the Archbishop of Canterbury has said would be a severe loss to the nation and the cathedral, will generate considerable charitable thought or support. For example, there may be support through the City livery companies,


the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, possibly through the Royal Commision on Historical Manuscripts, the National Heritage Memorial Fund and other similar bodies. It is in that direction that the constructive moves that my hon. Friend has bespoken will materialise.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman point out to the General Synod that if it alters the Care of Cathedrals Measure in January and passes an appropriate Measure, it could come to the House and be approved before the prospective sale of the Mappa Mundi by Sothebys in June? The General Synod and Parliament could act in time if the will was there and the Church Commissioners gave their backing.

Mr. Alison: What the hon. Gentleman said is true. However, he must not underestimate the controversy that might arise in the House if we were to start debating the fabric of cathedrals.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Mr. Bernard Ingham

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Lord President of the Council what facilities he is making available for Mr. Bernard Ingham in the Palace of Westminster.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I have nothing further to acid to the reply I gave the hon. Member on Monday 27 June, at column 18.

Mr. Dalyell: On Friday, in discussions on the new building, will the Lord President of the Council be announcing a suite of rooms fitting to such a great personage as Mr. Ingham? Will there be provision for a sub-station for him at Buckingham palace, and can the right hon. Gentleman tell us, once and for all, whether, when Mr. Ingham was instructing the Lobby on the question of the Queen and Russia, he was semi-detached?

Mr. Wakeham: On the first part of the question, the hon. Gentleman would be in trouble with his hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who wants more facilities in the House for Opposition Members, because his rather fanciful suggestions would make matters worse. I have no plans of the type mentioned.
On the other issue, the matter does not arise and is completely hypothetical. Consequently, it has not been addressed by the Government.

Members' Facilities

Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Lord President of the Council when he expects the completion of the inquiry by the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee into proposals to improve hon. Members' facilities in the Palace of Westminster.

Mr. Wakeham: It is not possible to predict at this stage when the inquiry will be completed. Preliminary discussions are taking place between the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee and the new Building Sub-Committee with a view to deciding how best to proceed. I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate that for

the Sub-Committees to consider thoroughly the wide range of possible improvements to right hon. and hon. Members' facilities, the inquiry will necessarily take a little time.

Mr. Thurnham: Will my right hon. Friend take steps to improve the security of the facilities in the building? Is he aware that the CID is examining handwriting to discover the identity of a thief who stole a private letter from my secretary's desk and posted it to the former Member for Bury and Radcliffe? Some Opposition Members have asked that we stop calling each other hon. Members. Will my right hon. Friend condemn the action of a former hon. Member in posting copies of such a letter to the press, and will he ask the Lord Chancellor to review the position of a justice of the peace who stoops to such disgraceful behaviour?

Mr. Wakeham: I know something of the case to which my hon. Friend refers, but it would not be appropriate for me to comment on any particular case, however distressing? I am sure that the arrangements to protect hon. Members' personal possessions and papers are, by and large, adequate. However, there is a point beyond which those arrangements cannot and should not operate. In the final analysis, hon. Members must bear responsibility for their possessions and are so advised in the official literature issued to them and their secretaries. I know that that goes wider than my hon. Friend's distressing case, but it is right that I should say it.

Mr. Allen: Before the Lord President of the Council comments on the report of the Sub-Committees, will he compare our facilities with those of Representatives and Congressmen in America, where there are up to 15 members of staff for each Congressman and three offices in each constituency, each with two full-time people? Although we would not require so many facilities, would not such assistance be a major improvement and help hon. Members to do their jobs?

Mr. Wakeham: I share the hon. Gentleman's view that we do not want those sorts of facilities, but I am sure that the Sub-Committees will do their best to provide better facilities where existing ones are not adequate.

Press Briefings (Televising)

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make facilities available in the House for the televising of press briefings given by Ministers or their press officers.

Mr. Wakeham: No, Sir.

Mr. Winnick: When a briefing is given to the Lobby, especially by someone of the importance of Mr. Ingham—who, as the Leader of the House knows, is in effect the deputy Prime Minister—should not the general public be allowed to see him in action giving his views on all sorts of national and international questions?

Mr. Wakeham: The parliamentary Lobby journalists have a room allocated to them in the North Turret above the Upper Committee Corridor. I understand that it is for their own convenience that they invite Ministers, Government information officers and others to brief them. The hon. Gentleman may well have been there. Arrangements for briefing the press outside the House are


organised separately by Government Departments. I do not believe that there is any need to change the arrangements.

Mr. Holt: Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that under no circumstance will he provide television facilities for briefings by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick)?

Mr. Wakeham: That is a slightly more difficult question. The Select Committee that I chair is charged with providing an experimental scheme for televising the proceedings of the House. If the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) takes part in those proceedings, he will be as likely as any other hon. Member to be seen on television.

Private Members' Bills

Mr. Alton: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he has any plans to seek to implement the recommendations of the Bow Group that additional time be provided in some circumstances to enable completion of consideration of private Members' Bills.

Mr. Wakeham: Any changes in the present arrangements for the consideration of private Members' business would be a matter for decision by the House.

Mr. Alton: Given the imminence of a debate on procedure and also the next private Members' ballot, is it not time that the right hon. Gentleman brought forward proposals, perhaps based on some of the recommendations of the Bow Group, to cover such matters as injury time, when time has been lost for various reasons, or for razor motions, to allow the House to decide whether additional time should be given so that important private Members' Bills can complete their stages, if that be the wish of the House?
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the beat-the-clock tactics that are so often used against controversial private Members' Bills bring the House into disrepute?

Mr. Wakeham: The question of time for private Members' Bills is something which the House might, at some stage, wish to reconsider. I am open minded on the matter and should prefer to hear the views of the House. That is one reason why I arranged for a procedure debate to take place later this week. I do not believe that the appropriate way to proceed is necessarily on the basis of a recommendation from even such a distinguished body as the Bow Group. However, if it is the will of the House to change the procedure, we can think about that at a later stage.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is profoundly unsatisfactory that the House can spend many hours and days debating a topic such as abortion, but, due to the delaying tactics of a minority, no final decision can be taken, despite very strong public opinion that a change in the law is overdue?

Mr. Wakeham: I certainly deplore delaying tactics. Debates should be conducted in proper accordance with our traditions and order. For a long time private Members' legislation has been subject to an overall time constraint, although this Government have allowed more time for such legislation than was the previous practice.

Members' Facilities

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Lord President of the Council what consideration is being given to making further facilities available in the House for Members of the Opposition.

Mr. Wakeham: As I confirmed earlier in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), the relevant Sub-Committees of the Services Committee are already charged with an examination of what further facilities should be provided for all Members, including those of the Opposition. The debate on the Services Committee report on the new parliamentary building (phase 2) this Friday should provide an excellent opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to raise any specific points he wishes to make.

Mr. Banks: When I tabled the question, I had in mind the inequality of treatment between the Government and the Opposition in the Chamber, for example on Report and in Committee on the Floor of the House. Ministers can refer to civil servants in their Box, and notes can be passed backwards and forwards. Opposition Members have difficulties if they wish to consult our advisers sitting under the Public Gallery. For example, our advisers are not allowed to bring in notes or to write notes for us. There seems to be inequality of treatment. I should like the Lord President to examine the matter and make sure that he acts upon it.

Mr. Wakeham: I shall certainly examine the matter, but I do not believe that the long-held customs and practices of the House need revising. I certainly take note of what the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Dykes: The sad reality is that, even if we improve facilities for Opposition Members, we will not improve their arguments and the cases that they deploy. Bearing in mind that we are members of an increasingly successful European Community, would it be more worthwhile to introduce access to our modest facilities for the first time for European Members?

Mr. Wakeham: I am of a more charitable frame of mind than my hon. Friend. Access to information will improve everybody's minds, including those of some Opposition Members.
On the question of access for European Members, as my hon. Friend will know, I have tried to get agreement to make some modest changes in the arrangements. It is right that we should proceed by agreement. At the moment I do not have that agreement, but I shall continue to try to get it.

Fax Machines

Mr. Cohen: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will set up in the Palace of Westminster and its outbuildings a network of fax machines for use by hon. Members.

Mr. Wakeham: I have no plans to do so.

Mr. Cohen: Fax machines are high-tech extensions of photocopiers and telephones, both of which are available for hon. Members. Should not the machine's general availability be one of the fax of life in this Parliament?

Mr. Wakeham: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the matter was considered by the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee not long ago. The conclusion was that it should be the responsibility of individual Members to provide their own machines, if that is what they want to do. There is a much-enhanced allowance—I shall say no more than that—for office expenses, which makes it possible to do so nowadays.

WELSH AFFAIRS

Ordered,
That the matter of the effects of the Queen's Speech on the people of Wales, being a matter relating exclusively to Wales, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &amp;c.

Ordered,
That the draft Iron Casting (Scientific Research Levy) (Abolition) Order 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.

Ordered,
That the draft Employment Subsidies Act 1978 (Renewal) (Great Britain) Order 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

Sri Chinmoy

Mr. David Wilshire: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you will be aware, great harm is being done in this country by religious cults, but are you aware that, judging by the invitation that I have here, a cult is planning to hold a meeting in one of our Committee Rooms tomorrow? The cult is Sri Chinmoy, whose leader caused you, Mr. Speaker, personal embarrassment earlier this year. He has been taken to task by the United Nations for claiming official links with that organisation. If the meeting goes ahead, there will be claims that we support the cult, and more young people will be tricked into signing up for total obedience to a cult, the leader of which claims to be able to lift elephants and paint 16,000 pictures a day. Do you have power to stop the meeting?

Mr. Speaker: I imagine that the normal rules in the matter have been followed. The Room has been booked by an hon. Member, and I have no reason to believe that anything out of order has taken place.

Orders of the Day — Debate on the Address

[FIFTH DAY]

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [22 November]

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:
Most Gracious Sovereign,
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.—[Sir Giles Shaw.]

Question again proposed.

Orders of the Day — Environment and Industry

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
In view of the pressure to speak in this debate today, I will impose between 7 and 9 o'clock the 10-minute limit on speeches. I say to those hon. Members who are called before that time to bear in mind that their speeches should not greatly exceed the limit of 10 minutes so that as many hon. Members as possible may be called.

Dr. John Cunningham: I beg to move, at the end of the Question, to add:
But humbly regret that the Gracious Speech contains proposals to create private monopolies by the sale of the nation's water and electricity industries to foreign and British commercial organisations, thus damaging the interests of consumers, taxpayers, and the environment; regret the absence of a Bill to safeguard comprehensively the nation's environment and heritage, and further regret the inclusion of proposals to discriminate against council house tenants whilst ignoring the problems caused by record levels of mortgage rates and homelessness in urban and rural areas alike.
In 1986 the Labour party adopted a radical and comprehensive policy document setting out its policies on the environment. That statement, although requiring updating in part, remains the most coherent statement of environment policy by any party in the House. It is a policy based on realism and experience, and sets out a bold strategy for Britain under a Labour Government. It is firmly based on our aims and values for a safer and cleaner environment nationally and internationally.
We welcome the challenge to political parties thrown down recently by the Worldwide Fund for Nature and other environmental groups, because the overwhelming majority of the issues that they cover are already part of our policy. I am confident that the rest will be covered by the existing policy review. We note that the Prime Minister has belatedly, after almost a decade in office, moved the environment to the top of her agenda. It has been at the top of ours for a considerable time. I suspect that, like us, the Prime Minister is aware that 81 per cent. of the British people believe that the Government should be doing more to protect the environment.
The Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for the Environment and I are all scientists. It is said that the beginning of wisdom is to look facts in the face and to call


them by their right names. Therefore, there should be some opportunity for agreement. Has there really been a conversion on the road to the Royal Society? Has the Secretary of State suddenly and uncharacteristically been transformed from the 19th century market forces guru that he has so often boasted of being, when deregulating buses, for example, or when trying to end the interference of councils in the housing market, into something different? Has he suddenly become the interventionist people's Nick? I doubt it.
The problem for the Government is that their ideology is completely out of phase with the demands of ecology—the science of people and the environmnent. In order to be complementary to sound environmental practice, successful policies demand intervention on a consistent and wide-ranging front and in every facet of policy. They also demand planning and interference in the market in a way that can only be anathema to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State.
We especially welcome the Prime Minister's speech at the Royal Society because it has focused attention on this need. In doing so it has moved the debate on to our political ground.
We believe, and history shows, that left to themselves market forces are environmentally damaging and destructive. The Government and the Secretary of State are in head-on collision with their own most cherished dogma that the market will provide a solution. However, our countryside, our heritage, the poor people of the world, the oceans and the atmosphere cannot take that gamble any longer—the risks are too great and the damage already too serious not to call a halt. I know that the Secretary of State, as a scientist, would agree that the market is not scientific.
It is also important to compare the recent rhetoric of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State with their records. Many hon. Members would agree that the pressures on land, housing, social facilities and on the infrastructure in London and in the south of England have become intolerable. Many Conservative Back Benchers are deeply uneasy about the consequences of their Government's policies, and we share that unease. The grotesquely distorted developments of the north-south divide in Britain are a direct consequence of Government policies since 1979.
The devastation of industry and employment in Scotland, the north and the midlands has produced the equal and opposite reaction in the south. In reality, many Tories are now getting what they voted for, but they are discovering that it is not what they really want. In Berkshire, Dorset, Essex, Hampshire and elsewhere protests mount as development rolls over towns and villages. It is impossible, however, not to feel a little sorry for the current Secretary of State—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Oh yes. He shares my view that all this is not really his fault and that it all began back in 1980 when the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) opened the floodgates to developments in the south—Berkshire and elsewhere.
At that time the Conservative Government issued strategic planning guidance to
sweep away obstacles to commercial enterprise
in the south. That guidance reduced proposals from Tory Berkshire and Surrey county councils in particular to extend the green belt to protect their communities. Of

course many people in the Tory party and many business people have taken their lead from that early guidance issued by the Tory Government.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: rose—

Dr. Cunningham: I shall give way in a moment.
In Dorset, the Tory county council is now proposing a new town in its own green belt land in the parish of St. Leonards and St. Ives. Several Tory councillors are also landowners and developers in the area and the former planning officer of the east Dorset district council has gone into busines to advise developers seeking planning permission in the local authority area. Bewildered and disillusioned local people are entitled to ask what is going on because it is not what they voted for. I know that some Tory Members share their concern.

Mr. Robert Adley: The hon. Gentleman has referred to an area in my constituency, and I regret that what he has said is true. There is widespread concern about what has been done and proposed by the Dorset county council. Does the hon. Gentleman share my hope that the Secretary of State will do to the county council's ideas what he has already done to a similar proposal by the Carroll Group—throw them out lock, stock and barrel?

Dr. Cunningham: Of course I share that view. I further hope, however, that the Secretary of State will, at long last, recognise that such unbalanced development in Britain is as bad for the people of the south as it is damaging for the people of the midlands, the north and Scotland. That is he failure at the heart of the Government's policies.

Mr. Heseltine: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that what we did in 1979–80 was, if anything, to reduce the consequences of the planning assumptions that the last Labour Government put before the county councils? Can he give one example of a county in which we increased the number of houses over and above the assumptions of the outgoing Labour Government?

Dr. Cunningham: I remind the right hon. Gentleman that, when he was Secretary of State, he granted on appeal for almost 1 million sq. ft. of extra office space in Berkshire. Such commercial development inevitably brought in its train huge increases in demand for housing in the Thames valley and elsewhere. That is what the right hon. Gentleman did when he was Secretary of State, and the present Secretary of State wrote on 18 March to remind him of it. Whatever he might say about the previous Labour Government, the growth in pressure for development in Greater London and in counties surrounding London is a direct result of the Government's policies since 1979.

Mr. Heseltine: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Cunningham: No, I shall not give way. The Secretary of State agrees with that and wrote and told the right hon. Gentleman so, and he knows it.
The highly respected photographer, Mr. Norman Parkinson, recently expressed his fears about those policies in the Thames valley when he talked of it becoming "another synthetic community". How right he was. The dilemma was perhaps posed more graphically by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) in an article entitled,
Southern California—a suburb coming near you soon".


The Secretary of State, as a scientist, recently wrote of the need to put "evidence before emotion" in the discussion of these issues. I am pleased to see that he recognises the need for that. I wish that he would put evidence before the House a little more often and practise what he preaches. Why does he not put before the House the evidence of his expenditure on housing action trusts which he has refused to do in answer to questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon)? Why does he not put before the House the evidence that he is commissioning on the value of the assets of Britain's water industries before he sells them? If he believes in putting evidence before emotion, why cannot everyone, including taxpayers, know of that evidence before decisions are taken?
Unfortunately for the Secretary of State, although he does not practise what he preaches, many environmentalists and scientists have taken him at his word. For example, Mr. Hugh Fish, retiring chairman of the Natural Environment Research Council, said recently that, if the squeeze on funding is not halted, environmental research could suffer damage from which it would take years to recover. His successor, Professor John Knill, warned that
the council could no longer support some important environmental monitoring programmes.
This year, the council is losing perhaps up to 160 jobs as a direct result of Government policy. The Department of the Environment's expenditure on environmental research has fallen in real terms from £40·6 million in 1979–80 to £28·8 million now, according to a written answer from the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment on 24 October this year.
The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has also announced wide-ranging cuts in research. At a time when eggs in Britain now come with a Government health warning because salmonella bacteria are endemic in chickens and eggs in this country, the research programme of the Food Research Institute at Bristol into microbial intestinal flora has been axed as a result of the Government's policies. Recently, on Radio 4's "Food Programme", Dr. Geoff Mead of that institute said:
Unfortunately our work has recently fallen victim of the Government's cuts in food and agriculture. So the work will now cease … The industry needs all the help it can get in applying whatever control measures are available.
Work in other important areas of public concern affecting pesticides, animal disease and pollution has also been cut. The secretary of the Agricultural and Food Research Council, Professor Stewart, has condemned the cuts, which he said
would have a drastic effect on the biological science base of the UK.
As recently as last Wednesday, the chairman of the Nature Conservancy Council, the inoffensive but effective Mr. William Wilkinson, said that the Government had cut the council's grant for next year by 5 per cent. He added:
The question of money is probably the matter that gives me the greatest anxiety as to whether or not we can carry out what is required for the future.
Since 1979, scientific research has been continually squeezed deliberately by the Government, with cuts affecting both research councils and universities. The cuts have been especially damaging to environmental monitoring programmes, including those directed to the atmosphere. Some, including the measurement of

long-lived radionuclides in estuarine sediments, have been axed altogether. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's recent announcement of increased funding for science falls well short of the minimum sum recommended by the Government's own advisory board for the research councils. The Government's policy of stopping the funding of what they call near market research can lead only to further cuts in long-term scientific work. The evidence from the Government's budget is that Ministers continue to downgrade long-term environmental monitoring and research when they allocate resources.
Examination of the Government's performance in other environmental matters exposes the Tories' record on the environment, which is abysmal. Britain has the dirtiest beaches in Europe, with the Commission taking legal action against the Government in five of the worst cases. Nearly 11 million people are forced to drink water of a quality below that required by Community standards, including those in many areas of the country where there are excessive nitrate levels in water. Again, the Community is taking Britain to court in respect of six serious breaches. There is a total absence of any strategy for managing the rising quantities of toxic and hazardous chemical wastes. This was graphically illustrated by the recent Karin B fiasco. Furthermore, there is a complete absence of any strategy for managing nuclear wastes. The Radioactive Wastes Management Advisory Committee reported in July,
policy remains disappointingly confused or deficient.
The Government's dilatory attitude towards tackling the problems of acid rain is well documented. Britain remains the largest emitter of sulphur dioxide in western Europe, with an increase of 200,000 tonnes last year. Between them the three power stations in the entrance to the Aire valley in Yorkshire—Ferrybridge, Eggborough, and Drax B—burn 20 million tonnes of coal a year, producing one fifth of the nation's electricity. They will be sending into the air annually about 800,000 tonnes of gases that can be converted into acid rain—600,000 tonnes of sulphur dioxide and 200,000 tonnes of nitrogen oxides. That is more than one sixth of the entire national outputs of Portugal, Norway, Switzerland and Ireland put together.
The Government have encouraged the import of hazardous and domestic wastes for purely financial gain while they have refused to consider the major implications for national land use and planning, the environment and public health. In addition, the Department of the Environment has just five inspectors to supervise more than 5,600 tips in England and Wales. That is simply not credible. Even responsible companies in the waste treatment industry are highly critical of the Government's policies.
The Government have also refused to meet their obligations under the convention on the international trade in endangered species. Again, the European Community has initiated legal proceedings. The Government still have a confused and lamentable response to the environmental consequences of the Chernobyl catastrophe. They also made a churlish, miserly and dishonest response to last year's unprecedented storm damage. The Tory-dominated Select Committee on Agriculture condemned that response in March. As a consequence of the Government's response, much of the


woodland areas of southern England appear set to remain devastated for decades as a result of the Government's policy.
Britain remains the worst offender in dumping materials in the North sea, with untreated sewage sludge and waste materials predominating.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Cunningham: In a moment.
Earlier this year, following an incident at the Lowermoor water treatment works, more than 20,000 people in the Camelford area were poisoned by their own domestic water supply. Of course, the regional water authority, thanks to the Government, now meets in secret and the press and public are excluded. There has been an internal inquiry into the biggest scandal involving the poisoning of people in this country in living memory. If the Secretary of State had any sense of duty and responsibility, he would set up a public inquiry into the matter now. However, he has consistently refused to do so.

Mr. Leigh: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with the level of investment by the water industry in sewage treatment over the past 20 years under Labour and Conservative Governments? If not, how would he re-order the priorities of a Labour Government to refresh those parts of the water authority which no Government has ever tackled?

Dr. Cunningham: Of course I am not satisfied. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that no Opposition Members are content with the status quo. However, we do not have to sell the nation's water assets to increase investment and improve pollution control; and we do not have to dun the consumers of water in the process either.
Nations bordering the North sea, our Community partners, the Nordic Council countries, Environment Select Committees of both Houses of Parliament and most recently the Royal Commission on environmental pollution are all strongly and persistently critical of the Government's policy failures. It is little wonder that the Government have been arraigned by the European Commission on more charges than all the other Community countries combined.
The Secretary of State argued last week that the nouveau riche were the best guardians of our heritage. Unfortunately for the Secretary of State, he was pre-empted by the nouveau riche Mr. Frank Bayada, who outbid conservationists to buy 34 acres of the New Forest in anticipation of the Secretary of State's thoughts. However, he ruined the policy promptly by taking a bulldozer to more than 500 ancient trees, felling the lot. In hours a 900-year-old habitat was wrecked, as was the Secretary of State's policy. The Sunday Telegraph says that our heritage is under the hammer. It is right: metaphorically and actually our heritage is being sold, and too often destroyed. People are dismayed at the proposed disposal of the Mappa Mundi and other church treasures. The British Coal sale of Thoresby hall in Nottinghamshire, against the views of English Heritage, is a disgrace, and I ask the Secretary of State to inquire into it.
Although the Government can find time in their programme for yet another Local Government Bill—there have been about 50 in 10 years—they can find no room for a Bill to safeguard more effectively our environment and

heritage. That is a deplorable omission. If the Government had been considering those issues seriously they would have approached the Opposition months ago to seek out common ground, but they have not done so, and their recent flurry of speeches—caused, no doubt, by alarm at public opinion—is exposed as bogus.
The Government have given no serious long-term thought to these crucial issues. I emphasise that we, for our part, are willing to begin now to explore the opportunities to achieve some consensus on them. But there can be no compromise on Bills on housing, or on the selling off of the nation's electricity and water industries.
The next Local Government Bill will demonstrate the triumph of dogma over reason in Tory policy. The Government's new financial regime for local authority housing could mean the end of central Government's housing subsidy to local authorities, and will also prevent housing departments from subsidising their housing costs from the general rate fund. Rents will rise, and tenants who can afford to pay the full rent will be asked to subsidise their neighbours who are in receipt of housing benefit. The cost of housing benefit will be transferred from general taxation to the rates, while surpluses on council rent funds will be transferred to the general rate fund. Thus council tenants will be taxed twice, first, to support housing benefit and, secondly, to subsidise the poll tax.
The Government are guilty of inefficiency and incompetence on housing finance. One in 10 homeless families are in their present difficulties because of mortgage failures and repossessions. That is the fastest-growing cause of homelessness in the country. House price inflation has put housing out of the reach of many young people who cannot afford a home in the communities in which they were born and have grown up, particularly in the south.
Central Government housing subsidy has been reduced by no less than 80 per cent. since 1979. That has resulted in a shortage of affordable rented housing. Public sector housing starts have fallen from 73,000 in 1979–80 to 15,000 at the latest estimate. That has placed local authorities in an impossible position, and they are spending millions of pounds of ratepayers' money on bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Council waiting lists in some parts of the country have simply stopped operating sensibly. The number of people on waiting lists in England has almost doubled in the past five years, from 750,000 in 1983 to 1·29 million in 1987. Transfers are rare, and growing families are often cramped in flats or other accommodation unsuitable for their needs.
The system of mortgage interest tax relief favours owner-occupiers over tenants and helps wealthier owner-occupiers most of all. In 1979–80 it was worth £1,450 million, and local authority housing subsidies amounted to not quite twice that amount. By 1985–86 mortgage tax relief had risen to £4·75 billion, but local authority housing subsidy had almost stabilised. So much for Government targeting. Twenty-five per cent. of mortgage interest tax relief goes to those earning over £20,000 a year. Housing benefit cuts penalise poorer tenants, especially young people and pensioners. What kind of targeting is that? We need to reform housing finance, to make it fairer both within and between the rented and purchase sectors of the housing market and to ensure an adequate supply of affordable rented housing.
Under the present Government, mortgage rates have been higher for longer than under any previous Government. It is all going wrong for the Chancellor. His top-rate tax-cutting strategy has resulted in only the most wealthy being guaranteed any improvement in living standards. For millions of families the spring tax cuts have been cancelled out by the price rises and mortgage clawbacks of the autumn, and social security cuts make many worse off than ever. Low and middle-income families unable to afford private sector provision are seeing their quality of life suffering from underfunding of the public services. Cuts in real spending and investment in many services have been confirmed in the Autumn Statement, ensuring continued neglect well into the 1990s, and increasingly the British people regard that as unacceptable.
How is this for a quotation:
The Government's 'panic hike' in minimum lending rate demonstrates the continuing collapse of its economic policies."?
That was said about a Government who put interest rates up to their present levels. But it was said by the present Foreign Secretary in October 1976 after two years of Labour Government, in the middle of the worst world oil price hikes ever experienced. We have now reached those levels after 10 years of the present Government, and we are the only country in the western world that is self-sufficient in energy supplies. What have the Government to say about that now?
We also have serious misgivings about proposals to change the basis of funding under section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972. A change to per capita funding will in many cases have a profoundly adverse effect on councils' discretionary spending and on local schemes, whether in partnership with the private sector or with the highly valued voluntary organisations.
We are implacably opposed to proposals to sell off our nation's electricity and water assets, and to the possibility of control of such fundamental and strategic resources passing abroad. It is difficult to believe that any national Government would elevate the pig-headed pursuit of dogma to such levels.
In electricity supply we shall see the end of coherent, strategic planning of the industry. We face a nuclear power imposte on consumers. Private enterprise gets the assets; consumers get the bill to deal with decommissioning and nuclear waste—if the Government ever have a policy to deal with it, that is. Confusion reigns as the Secretary of State for Energy contradicts the Secretary of State for the Environment, and vice versa. Confusion reigns as the Government refuse to let the market decide, and insist on the building of nuclear power stations regardless of the economics and of the cost to the consumer.
Was it evidence or was it emotion that caused the Secretary of State's outburst about the need for a massive expansion in nuclear power to counteract the greenhouse effect? It certainly was not historical fact that guided him. He quoted the French. The French embarked on nuclear power expansion in the 1970s, but not to protect the environment. The French Minister of the time said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and me when we queried public reaction to their policy, "When you are draining the swamp you do not consult the

frogs." It was hardly environmental concerns that drove the French; it was because they recognised that they had no oil or gas and very little coal of their own.
It was not the fact of his own Government's track record on nuclear power that could have guided the Secretary of State. For all their boasting, the Government have begun but have not yet completed one nuclear power station in a decade. It was no analytical, scientific assessment, either. The presence of pollution in the world's atmosphere traps too much heat near the earth instead of allowing it to escape into space. According to the United Nations environment programme, only 50 per cent. of the 3 deg warming effect that is expected early in the next century will be caused by carbon dioxide, and only one third of the 50 per cent. is caused by fossil-fuelled power stations. That is an essential scientific fact that the Secretary of State does not seem to have grasped.
Let us suppose that the nuclear solution is imposed and that we replace two thirds of our fossil-fuelled power stations with nuclear power. The result will be a less than 12 per cent. reduction in the United Kingdom's total contribution to global warming, achieved by building about 30 nuclear reactors. If the Secretary of State had talked about a massive expansion of public transport, he would have been widely applauded because 25 per cent. of the carbon dioxide comes from vehicle emissions, and that figure is expected to increase by 50 per cent. before the end of the century.
The answer that the Secretary of State is grappling for is not a massive expansion of nuclear power, for which there is no place, but a major programme of energy conservation and intervention to reduce demand and to increase the energy efficiency of our homes, industries and public buildings. However, this Government have frittered away the major programme of energy conservation policies that they inherited precisely because they were interventionist.
The BBC says that the Secretary of State's "On The Record" interview was arranged to take place in his home to prevent a walk-out when he was confronted with the evidence of his own confusion. When confronted earlier by ITV over his inconsistency, emotion overcame evidence. The Secretary of State walked out of the studio in the middle of the interview. To obscure his confusion even further, the Secretary of State now attempts to present water privatisation as an environmental measure.
It is completely unnecessary to sell the nation's water assets to achieve the environmental improvements that the Government say are their objective. The proposals ensure that private enterprise will obtain huge and important environmentally sensitive assets while the taxpayer and water consumers are expected to foot the bill for cleaning up the appalling pollution that already exists.
The Secretary of State for the Environment has made no attempt to quantify the value of the assets to be sold, as recommended by the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee in its recent report, following the Royal Ordnance fiasco. A huge rip off of the taxpayer is being planned by the Secretary of State. Consumers will have no choice. The proposals contain no iota of competition. They will result in powerful private monopolies deciding their policies for our water supply in secret.
It was this Government who acted to exclude the press, the public and local authority representatives from the meetings of regional water authorities. They have a lot to answer for.
The Secretary of State says that water supply and sewage disposal will be subject to the disciplines of the private sector, but such disciplines as the private sector affords result from the market. There will be no market. Furthermore, there will be no competition and no choice over water supply or sewage disposal. How, therefore, can any disciplines apply? "Ah, yes," said the Secretary of State at his press conference last week, "I know that. Let them use Perrier." Thus spoke Nicholas Antoinette. Picture the scene. "It's time for granny's bath," mother says. "Come now, children. We can't afford a jacuzzi, but pass up the Perrier." It is a joke. It is preposterous. Water consumers will have no choice and no option. They will be at the mercy of massive private enterprise monopolies.
As with the electricity proposals, water privatisation will cost the consumer a great deal. This Government's inflationary dogma will be a burden on the whole economy.
In a speech to the Bow Group on 11 October 1988 the Secretary of State said that this Government were
Taking the lead in getting the other Governments of the world to accept their responsibilities.
Will he confirm that at a meeting of Environmental Ministers in Brussels this weekend the British Government blocked a proposal to introduce a new European Community directive to protect threatened flora, fauna and habitats? Is that encouraging other Governments to accept their responsibilities for the environment?
In the same speech on 11 October, the Secretary of State said:
The Government does have first-class scientific advisers
perhaps that should be, "did have first-class scientific advisers"—
and we must enable everyone to share the information they give us. We spend a lot of taxpayers' money on research and advice and indeed we have the best advice. The taxpayer has every right to know the results.
We look forward, therefore, to a green Bill encompassing the freedom of information proposals that are essential if those commitments are to be guaranteed.
We know that under this Prime Minister there is no such thing as society. If she and her Secretary of State remain in power for much longer, there will be little, if any, science, either. It is not just a question of their lack of commitment, their failure to face the evidence and put it before the emotion of their ideology. It is their failure to maintain, let alone improve upon, an already inadequate and fragmented framework of environmental legislation, protection and enforcement.
We are now asked to believe that this Government—red in market forces tooth and claw—have become ideologically colour blind and have taken on a green mantle. We do not need carbon dating to prove that it is a fake. Environmentalists do not believe them. Industry does not believe them. The Secretary of State's pollution inspectors do not believe them, either—that is why they have resigned. And we do not believe them.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): The Opposition amendment does not cover some of the main points that the hon. Gentleman has

just made about planning policy and research. I shall deal quickly with the research figures and then move to the amendment itself.
The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) may be interested to know that, contrary to the figures that he gave, the total of Government-funded research will increase from £825 million this year by a further £93 million next year. I do not know how on earth he can describe that as a cut. He may also like to know that within the increased budget for environmental research that is received by the Natural Environment Research Council the council may change its priorities within the increased total—which is what it has done. The hon. Gentleman seemed to ignore totally a Bill that is probably the biggest contribution to cleaning up the environment ever to he put before the House. I am referring to the Water Bill, which has been published.
The privatisation of water and electricity will achieve two vital objectives. First, it will open those industries to the private capital markets for the huge investments that will be needed in future in both industries—mainly to clear up the backlog of pollution, which resulted from the Labour Government's stewardship. Secondly, it will give the managements of those industries the incentive to increase efficiency, to innovate and to diversify for the benefit of their customers and the economy generally.
Much has been said recently about the three big French water companies that are buying some of our statutory water companies. Those three French water companies have been privately owned for a long time and they supply water in France and in many other countries with great efficiency as a result of being in the private sector. I want our English and Welsh water authorities and companies to be equally enterprising, efficient and profitable. I know that the Labour party does not want that. I look forward to the day when they operate efficiently and profitably, not only on their present territory, but perhaps in France, Europe and further afield still.
The hon. Member for Copeland scarcely mentioned the Water Bill. However, I happened to hear the interview that he gave on Radio Cumbria on Thursday night. No doubt he thought that as he was well away from Westminster and had left the House early on a Thursday evening he would be out of earshot. But I heard the broadcast. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Ridley: For the sake of greater accuracy, to use your phrase, Mr. Speaker, I obtained a transcript. I shall quote four sections of it to prove how extravagantly inaccurate the hon. Gentleman is. He said:
There are huge gaps in the Bill which ensure that existing pollution will continue and that people who are the polluters will be able to drive a coach and horses through the provisions. So there are no real improvements and safeguards for the environment in this Bill.
The truth is that the change in the structure of the water industry that will accompany privatisation will bring out the inherent weakness in the current arrangements, under which the poacher and the gamekeeper have been and are the same person, in the terms used by the Select Committee on the Environment. The water authorities, which are some of the greatest dischargers of polluting substances into rivers, have had also to fulfil the role of controlling pollution of those rivers. We shall change that unsatisfactory situation so that, for the first time, there will


be a major national body with a single dedicated remit to tackle water pollution. It will have comprehensive powers to regulate all discharges into rivers, estuaries and the sea and to take action to forestall or remedy pollution.
I shall now quote from an article in the Financial Times of last Friday to show how wrong the hon. Member for Copeland was. [Interruption.] I hope that the House will listen.—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Ridley: The article said of the water authorities:
they will be bound hand and foot by regulations specifying standards of quality and service, some from the European Community and others from ministerial directives. They will be subject to a pricing regime which will limit their return on investment, and allow the new Director of Water Regulation to examine in detail the prudence and efficiency of their capital expenditure. They will also be under the supervision of a separate 6,000-strong National Rivers Authority, charged with the general management of river basins.
The hon. Gentleman was talking absolute rubbish, and he knows it.
I shall quote again from the Radio Cumbria interview. The hon. Gentleman said:
Individuals or their local authorities or their health authorities will not be able to bring charges against people who actually supply water which is unfit for human consumption.
The hon. Gentleman has not done his homework, because he has not read the Bill. It will make it a criminal offence, for the first time, for a water undertaker to supply piped water that is unfit for human consumption. Under the present law, that is not a criminal offence. That change is one of the many ways in which the Bill brings an improvement in safeguards for the consumer and the environment. The hon. Gentleman talked rubbish on that matter as well.

Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful for the fact that the Secretary of State has given way, if only to allow me to put on record my appreciation of the new doctrine that people go into radio broadcasts so that they will not be overheard.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that, under the new provisions, he and the Director of Public Prosecutions will determine whether actions are taken, and that members of the public, local authorities and even district health authorities will not be able to do so?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman knows that he is mixing up two different types of prosecution. When we come to detailed consideration of the Bill I shall be able to put him right on that as well.
I want to continue to take the hon. Gentleman to task for his broadcast. He said of me:
Why should we believe him when his own pollution inspectors have made it clear that they don't believe what Ministers are saying, and that's why they are resigning from his Department.
The hon. Gentleman is not good at listening, but I hope that he will listen now.
Mr. Perriman and the Department have agreed that, because of speculation in the press—much of it misinformed—the reason for his resignation may be stated publicly. The reason was disagreement about some elements of the proposals for reorganising Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution in the regions. Those proposals

are still the subject of consultation with staff representatives. Under the proposals, specialist teams of inspectors in each region would be matched with a particular class of industry. Mr. Perriman originally supported that proposal, but later changed his mind in favour of teams of multi-purpose inspectors allocated on a geographical basis.
I am sad that Mr. Perriman feels it necessary to resign over this matter, and I am sad to see him go, but that actually is his reason for going. In no sense is his reason for going anything to do with disagreements over the Government's policies or about lack of resources for the inspectorate. Our first task since Her Majesty's inspectorate was formed in April 1987 was to fill vacancies. We have been successful. Vacancies have fallen from 66 then to 19 now—out of 200 posts. It remains our objective to provide Her Majesty's inspectorate with the resources that it needs to do the job we have given it.

Dr. Cunningham: That seemed a long, boring and convoluted way of agreeing that pollution inspectors are resigning because they have differences of opinion on policy with the Secretary of State.

Mr. Ridley: That is not so. The hon. Gentleman is wrong. He is talking rubbish once more. Indeed, he seldom talks anything but rubbish. As I have said, Mr. Perriman disagrees with his colleagues in the inspectorate about how best to organise the inspectorate regionally.
My final quotation from the hon. Member is this:
The water authority managers are already talking about increases in costs to the consumer of between 50 and 80 per cent.—that's really a pretty clear signal to us that they are probably going to double in the short term and maybe in the longer term go up by two or three times.
That is what the hon. Gentleman said in that famous interview.
Again, the hon. Gentleman's suggestion of doubling or trebling water charges is absolute rubbish. I have made it clear that, on the known programmes of environmental improvements so far—cleaner beaches, drinking water quality and improvement to sewage treatment works—the necessary investment might increase prices by between 7·5 and 12·5 per cent. in real terms by the end of the century. It could well be more if further environmental improvements are necessary.
Of course, there are other factors, such as the higher cost of private sector capital, and so on, but the greater efficiency that we expect will work the other way. The increase in charges will be nowhere near the extravagant predictions of the hon. Gentleman. Doubling water charges would produce an extra £3 billion per annum: trebling them would produce £6 billion per annum. Those figures compare with an investment next year of £1·3 billion. His figures are miles wide of the mark and were produced with the deliberate intention of misleading and misinforming. Once more, I say that he was talking absolute rubbish.
What we have to contend with is that, when in government, the Labour party cut investment in the water services by a third, and, within that investment, in sewage treatment works by half. In our debate a fortnight ago the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) eventually got it right and had to admit that the Labour Government "had not wanted to" cut investment. We now have a strange new doctrine: "The Labour party wants to increase public investment, but has to cut it; apparently, the Tories want


to cut it, but actually increase it." On the hon. Gentleman's own admission, that is what is happening. In fact, we have increased investment to over £1·3 billion next year. Those damaging cuts under Labour are the main reasons for the defects that still exist in the water environment, and we do not need to be lectured by Labour Members about this matter.
There is an underlying truth in all this. It is that pollution control costs money. That is why Socialist economies, which are not as successful as market economies, do not make the necessary investments in pollution control. In a controlled economy the resources are just not available.

Mr. Jack Straw: rose—

Mr. Ridley: No, the hon. Gentleman must wait. He can make his speech later if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker. It is worth telling him why Labour cut investment in water and sewerage. The International Monetary Fund told the Labour Government that they had to do so. The IMF came in because Government spending was way out of control. That is why there will never be the resources to make the necessary investment in the water industry if it remains in the public sector.
We now have a healthy economy that can afford to clean up the environment. The two go hand in hand. A strong and growing economy requires a good environment in which to flourish. Equally, environmental protection and improvement need the benefits of growth and a strong economy to meet the costs. The costs are high—amounting to several billions of pounds for our current environmental initiatives.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Secretary of State tell us why, after 10 years, Britain has the reputation of being the dirtiest nation in Europe? Could that have something to do with the raw sewage that the Secretary of State is delivering as his speech this afternoon?

Mr. Ridley: That is not true—[HON. MEMBERS: "Absolute rubbish."] The only thing that the Labour party seeks to do is to damage the reputation of this country by talking rubbish, as the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) was doing.
The polluter will have to pay for the increased investments. As a result of the successful agreement last week on motor car emissions, the motorist will have to pay a further £850 million annually. There will be increases in water charges to improve, first, the quality of beaches through the provision of long sea outfalls; secondly, quality water through the "Red List" controls over industrial discharges; and thirdly, sewage treatment works through the massive investment programme of upgrading.
To reduce SO2 and NOx emissions substantially—one of which is the cause of acid rain—there will have to be an increase in the price of electricity. However, I want to make it clear that the price increases will be due not to privatisation, but to the improvements to the environment for which the Labour party has rightly asked. Labour Members will not be able to say later that the price increases are due to privatisation—[HON. MEMBERS: "Absolute rubbish."] We will take no lectures from the Labour party.
I turn not to the other major issue of environmental clean-up. The House might be amused to remember a

contribution on this subject from the hon. Member for Copeland. On the eve of the last election the Labour party said that it would ban fox hunting. However, the hon. Gentleman suddenly remembered his own constituency and said, "but not in national park areas." That is the level of consistency within the Labour party. That is the extent to whch the Labour party's views are based on science. That is the hon. Gentleman's commitment to the environment—[HON. MEMBERS: "Absolute rubbish."] It is absolute rubbish from the Labour party. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman left out areas of outstanding natural beauty.
The amendment refers to a mythical Bill which the hon. Member for Copeland would like to see enacted,
to safeguard comprehensively the nation's environment and heritage".
No such Bill is needed. We will be presenting the House with a Bill as soon as possible, and certainly during this Parliament, to do the things that are not yet quite ready for introduction. They cover two significant but specific topics.
The first is the introduction of an integrated system to control industrial pollution, which will put Her Majesty's inspectors of pollution on a proper statutory footing and introduce a cross-media system of control that takes account of the unity of the natural environment. The second is the reform of waste disposal law to increase waste disposal authorities' powers to regulate waste disposal, to place a statutory duty of care on the producers and holders of waste and to control imports of wastes and fly tipping. Substantial changes to the legal infrastructure are needed before those measures can be brought forward. It is also necessary to have consultations with the authorities concerned and to get it right. I repeat, however, that that Bill will be introduced when we are ready, arid during this Parliament. We do not need the mammoth declaratory Bill for which the Opposition are calling. We have a massive programme of environmental improvement which does not require legislation.

Mr. Allan Roberts: As the Secretary of State is so worried about the problems of toxic waste disposal, will he continue to allow large quantities of toxic waste to be imported? If the toxic waste on Karin B were repackaged, would he allow it into Britain?

Mr. Ridley: It may be right for it to come here because we have specialist facilities for dealing with such material. The arrangements are that if it is suggested that a consignment of toxic waste is to come to Britain, prior notification must be given, with a proper analysis of the contents. If the hon. Gentleman is an environmentalist, he might agree that it could be better for such toxic waste to be treated in plants capable of treating it properly than to have it dumped in the sea or in some underdeveloped country which does not have the necessary facilities.
I should like now to consider the important issues which do not require legislation. I shall take first the ozone layer and the damage caused to it by CFCs. It is one of the most serious problems that we face and the one to which we are devoting the highest priority. We took a leading part in the negotiations that led to the Montreal protocol last year. We have developed scientific understanding further, and we have taken the initiative by calling for a cut of 85 per cent. in CFCs worldwide as soon as possible and a speeding up of implementation of the Montreal protocol.
I announced last Wednesday that, next March, the Government will host an international ministerial conference on ozone depletion, with the objective of giving a further political impetus to more worldwide reductions in CFCs and to demonstrate practical reductions of at least 85 per cent. as soon as possible. I believe that it will have a substantial impact on helping developing countries, which could make or break the strategy to reduce the global use of ozone depleting chemicals, to come on board on this most vital of environmental subjects.

Mr. Allan Rogers: I applaud the fact that the Government have taken the initiative by calling a meeting so that the Montreal protocol can be developed, but will the Government put their money where their mouth is and be prepared to help Third world countries and those, such as India and China, which have said that they want to ensure that every household has a refrigerator by the end of the century, which would mean an enormous expansion in the use of CFCs? Will the Government allow aid and technology transfers to those countries so that they can implement some of the objectives of the Montreal protocol?

Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has got the point about the conference. That is exactly what the conference will have to discuss. The point of the conference is to analyse the problems and the shortages of knowledge and funds so that we can get underdeveloped countries to accept the need to reduce CFCs in the light of solutions to their problems, which we can then develop. The hon. Gentleman is right. We shall be there to help them.
The hon. Member for Copeland referred to acid rain. We have undertaken to make a 60 per cent. reduction in SO2 emissions from existing large power stations by the year 2003, and a 30 per cent. reduction in NOx emissions. That will involve further substantial expenditure, over and above the Central Electricity Generating Board's present £1 billion power station clean-up programme.

Dr. Cunningham: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), I welcome what the Secretary of State said about CFCs. Why have the Government discontinued funding of the pressurised fluidised bed combustion system at Grimethorpe, which was initiated by the Labour Government? It shows the way ahead in coal technology. It would deal with emissions of SO2 and the oxides of nitrogen. Is it not shortsighted to allow that project to fold up?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman knows that the problem of high sulphur emissions arises because we have such high sulphur coal. We need the new technology, but the research to which he refers does not seem to be yielding the technology that we need, at least not in terms of SO2.
Tighter vehicle emission standards which should halve emissions from cars have been brought in. Final agreement on a European Community package of measures was achieved by my noble Friend the Earl of Caithness in Brussels last week. The technology favoured by the Government for meeting the strict new Luxembourg standards is a lean-burn engine with an oxidation catalyst.
This delivers the lower emissions demanded and promises fuel economy improvements that will be important as we tackle the greenhouse effect and try to minimise CO2.
We believe that it is a superior option to the bolt-on approach of three-way catalytic converters, not least because of its robustness. Lean-burn engines reliably and permanently reduce emissions at source. Catalysts have to be expensively and regularly maintained. They can, and do, go wrong, and when that happens there is no reduction in emissions at all. Nor do they reduce CO2.
Earlier this month the United Kingdom signed the NOx protocol at Sofia. It commits us to halt the hitherto inexorable rise in NOx emissions, to apply the best available technologies which are economically feasible to abate NOx emissions from the major sources, and by 1996 to have adopted policies based on the scientifically evaluated "critical loads" which the environment can tolerate. Achieving international agreement to base policy on scientific knowledge is a major breakthrough. I am confident that the measures we are taking to reduce emissions for power stations and vehicles will result in a substantial decrease in United Kingdom NOx emissions.
Despite what the hon. Member for Copeland said, last year we achieved all our goals with regard to the North sea conference, and we can implement them without further legislation. I shall remind the House of what they are: an end to marine incineration by the end of 1994, the stopping of dumping of harmful industrial wastes into the North sea by the end of 1989 and a reduction in inputs of more damaging substances into rivers by 50 per cent. by 1995. All those measures are now being applied to all our seas.
The hon. Member for Copeland mentioned repairs to the housing stock. The English house condition survey, which is carried out every five years, provides the best indication of our progress towards securing better housing conditions. The 1986 survey is published today, and the results are encouraging. The report shows that the overall condition of the stock has improved since the previous survey in 1981. That reflects substantial private spending on the maintenance and renovation of the stock, which increased by 30 per cent. in real terms between 1981 and 1986. Public sector spending on improvement grants for private owners more than doubled, and spending on the renovation of council houses increased by 60 per cent. over the same period. The new policies that we are introducing will lead to even more rapid progress in the improvement of the housing stock.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman referred to mortgage interest. I have the building societies' press release here, which states that, far from there being a great increase in arrears and repossessions by building societies,
In the first six months of 1988 building societies took possession of 2,100, or 19 per cent., fewer properties compared with the previous six month period … The number of building society loans in arrears for six months or over is also down. At the end of June 1988 the number of loans in arrears for six months or more was 2,000 lower than at the end of 1987 and around 4,000 lower than a year earlier. The decline in the number of possessions and arrears is consistent with the improvement in the performance of the economy in recent years and, in particular, the sharp fall in unemployment which began in the middle of 1986.
Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's fears about mortgages are not so far borne out.

Mr. Allen McKay: Those figures come from building societies. Would the Secretary of State care to look at loans and repossessions by local authorities?

Mr. Ridley: I am happy to look at that, but I am quoting from the building societies, which are the main lenders.
Yesterday I heard the Leader of the Opposition on the radio, and for the sake of greater accuracy I obtained a copy of what he said. He said of the Chancellor of the Exchequer:
He won't even think of the possibility of trying to control new requirements for borrowing. Not harming the current industrial borrowing, not harming the current consumer borrowing but actually gradually getting demand squeezed in this economy which, because of the explosion, it has to be, doing it in such a way as not to hit those people who borrowed in good faith either for current purchase of houses or for the financing of industrial development.
If one can disentangle that, the right hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting a system whereby interest rates will increase for new borrowing, but not for existing borrowing. That is what it means. If it does not mean that, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can tell us what it does mean, because he suggested that as a great solution to our economic problems. As I am anxious about the mortgage scene, I should like to know what it means. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] I am asking the right hon. Gentleman, but he is not prepared to rise. If he is not prepared to deny that that is what his statement means, I shall put it again. The Chancellor should control new borrowing
in such a way as not to hit those people who borrowed in good faith either for current purchase of houses or for the financing of industrial development.
What is the right hon. Gentleman going to do? He knows full well that we cannot increase interest rates for new borrowings only. He knows that that is rubbish. He is talking just as much rubbish as his hon. Friends on the Front Bench.
Improvements to housing, new housing, repairs to housing, and investment in water, sewerage and the environment, let alone all the other matters that command the interest and attention of this House, cost a great deal of money. Yet I believe that we can have both the necessary economic growth, without which the resources to pay for these improvements will not be possible, and the measures to clean up the environment. Most of what needs to be done does not require legislation, but where legislation is required, as in the Water Bill, we shall not hesitate to act. My commitment to safeguarding the environment and the heritage and to the future of the planet is no less real, because it is founded on careful research and science. Unlike the Labour Government, this party has made available in government the resources to deliver all those commitments.

Mr. Denzil Davies: If I had the command of the English language which the Secretary of State has, would describe his speech as absolute rubbish, but I do not need to comment on it because the face of the Patronage Secretary, which the Secretary of State could not see, told all. I noticed that he left the Chamber the moment that the right hon. Gentleman sat down. The Secretary of State spoke about the environment, but I intend to speak about

a subject which used to be fairly close to the right hon. Gentleman's heart—the economy and trade. I understand that the Minister for Trade may reply to the debate.
There are about 25 paragraphs in the Gracious Speech, of which only two relate to the economy, which may present a more serious problem than the environment. After 10 years of Conservative party rule Britain has by far the worst inflation rate of all our major industrial competitors and it is getting worse. It will probably be 8 per cent. next year and who knows what it will be the following year. Our level of unemployment, despite recent falls, is still higher than that of many of our competitors. We have the highest level of real interest rates in the whole of the Western world and our balance of payments deficit is horrendous. Apart from the United States, whose deficits are also horrendous, we have the worst balance of payments deficit of all Western industrial countries. Practically all our competitors are either in considerable surplus or have small, manageable deficits. That is the position to which the Prime Minister's policies have brought our economy.
In 1979 the Government were elected on their main promise to defeat inflation—not just to control or reduce it, but to slay the dragon itself. Now, 10 years later, we read in the Gracious Speech on the subject of inflation the words:
My Government will … bear down on inflation
—a phrase of mandarin blandness which reflects the Government's uncertainty and lack of confidence in being able to do so.
I shall deal briefly, not with inflation, but with another indicator of the health of a country's economy and in particular of its productive capacity, which is the balance of payments. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has repeatedly told us that he is not worried about the balance of payments. The balance of payments, we are blandly told, always balances and that is that. But I think that privately the Chancellor does worry and if he does not, I am sure that his officials worry. If the Chancellor were able to announce a balance of payments surplus which was merely 10 per cent. of that achieved by the West Germans, he would put on his velvet suit and his gold medallion and dance in the streets.
Of course the balance of payments must balance. A balance has to balance. Every balance sheet has to balance. The Barlow Clowes balance sheet balanced, but it did not do the investors much good. The real question is not whether the balance of payments balances, but how it balances. Does it balance with a plus as it does in Germany and Japan, or does it balance with a minus as it does in Britain? Is it above the line, or below the line? As we all know, the Government, who pride themselves on their financial rectitude, balance with a minus—£15 billion below the line this year, probably another £15 billion below the line next year and who knows what will happen in the following year? All one can say with confidence is that it will be a minus, and substantially below the line.
The greatest deterioration in our trade balance has been with the rest of the EEC—our main trading partners and the countries with which we have more than 50 per cent. of our trade. That deterioration did not take place overnight, last month or the month before. It started just after 1981. In 1981 we had a current account surplus—that is a visible trade surplus—with the countries of the EEC of £973 million. By 1984, three years later, that surplus had become a deficit of £2·3 billion. By 1986, the deficit had


grown to £8·8 billion. Last year, in 1987, the deficit was £13 billion. Perhaps the Minister of Trade and Industry can tell us what it will be this year and next year, because the Treasury will not. When questions are tabled asking the Treasury to forecast this year's and next year's visible trade deficit with the EEC, apparently it does not know or does not want to tell.
In 1981 the manufactures trade deficit was £3·4 billion and last year it was almost £11 billion—an increase of almost 350 per cent. That is a deficit not with countries such as Taiwan or South Korea or with countries which pay low wages or use sweated labour, but with countries with a higher standard of living, higher wages and better public and welfare services than we have in Britain. By and large, they are countries that have not followed the fashion of radical Right ideology that has been embraced by Britain and the United States during the past 10 years. All the countries in Europe that have not done so seem to have a surplus while Britain and the United States have a deficit. Perhaps that is a coincidence which we can debate on another occasion.
Do the Government really believe that their present policies of merely raising the interest rates will dent, let alone substantially reduce, that massive deficit with EEC countries, especially with 1992 approaching and all the other trade barriers within the EEC being brought down? I read all the sophisticated comments in the press about interest rates, but as far as I can see, by putting up interest rates the Chancellor makes the deficit worse, as the CBI pointed out today.
A German manufacturer is very fortunate in that he can borrow at about 5 per cent. A British manufacturer now has to pay at least 13 per cent. A small manufacturer here probably has to pay 15 or 16 per cent. while his German competitor has to pay 5 per cent. Of course, the 13 per cent. British interest rate puts up the value of the pound against the deutschmark. At lunchtime today there were 3·19 deutschmarks to the pound. Therefore, German imports become even cheaper, British exports become even more expensive and the trade gap worsens. The same consequences apply with most of the countries of the EEC, although on a smaller scale. After 10 years of the Government's policies Britain is ceasing to be a major producer country that can compete effectively with its EEC partners in a whole range of goods. I concede that during that 10-year period there has been some improvement in productivity in some industries. I believe that most of that improvement is the result of high unemployment. However, despite the improvement, there is not enough industry left in Britain and the skills are not available to enable us to compete on a large scale with our EEC partners.
The Chancellor says that it does not matter and that nobody will worry about the deficit so long as it can be financed. Wise men nod at that, go away and do not think about it, but how is it being financed? Some of it—I do not know how much as we cannot get the figures these days but perhaps about 20 per cent.—is being financed out of what used to be called direct investment from abroad through purchases of land, bricks and mortar and factories. At least such investment is fairly stable. The bricks and mortar, the factories and the land cannot leave overnight. When Nestle bought Rowntrees for about £2

billion, the Chancellor must have been delighted. He must have been dancing with joy because at that time—not very long ago—£2 billion in Swiss francs would have financed his deficit for about four months. Now it would finance his deficit for only one month, or perhaps even less than that, on the basis of last week's figures. The Chancellor now needs to sell practically every month to finance the deficit.
Just as internally the Government are selling off public assets to help finance and reduce their borrowing requirement—we heard today about the water and electricity industries—to finance their own public expenditure and bring down the percentage total of GDP, they are happy and delighted to sell British industry to overseas buyers to finance their external deficit.
Direct investments finance only a small part of the deficit. The rest is being financed by what used to be described as "hot money"—money that now can leave the country at the touch of a button. That money can go into stocks and shares, but no one is buying stocks and shares at the moment because of the lack of confidence in the Government's economic policies. In theory, it could be invested in Government stock, but there is not much of that around, because, as the Chancellor boasts at the Dispatch Box, the Government are repaying the national debt and are not issuing stock. It is curious that the yield on longer-term Government stock is less than what it would earn in the bank.
Why should a foreign investor buy medium-term gilts when he can get far more by putting the money on bank deposit? Of course, that is what is happening. The Chancellor does not worry about the deficit. He does not care about it, he just wants to finance it. Frankly, it is being financed by the hottest of hot money—that is, bank deposits. It is no wonder that at 3.30 pm last Friday the Chancellor rushed to put up interest rates to 13 per cent. If he had not, by this afternoon half those deposits would have left the country and sterling would have been under pressure.
The Chancellor is now a prisoner of external events which are completely outside his control. If, for example, the new American President were forced to put up American base rates by 2 per cent. to protect the dollar, the Chancellor would have to put up the British interest rates by 2 per cent. immediately because he would have to stop the flight of money out of London and into New York and so maintain the exchange rate differential. Paradoxically and ironically, if the dollar recovered, the Chancellor would have problems again as there would be a flight of money from London to New York and the pound would be under pressure.
What is to be done about the enormous balance of payments deficit, especially—this is the heart of the problem—the deficit with the rest of Western Europe? In the end the Government will be forced—it gives me no pleasure to say this—either by market forces or by a sense of economic reality, to try to negotiate Britain into full membership of the European monetary system. That would involve a substantial reduction in the value of the pound against the deutschmark and the realignment of other currencies in the EMS. The Chancellor wanted to do that at the beginning of the year. He, or his officials, spotted what was likely to happen, and tried gradually to bring down interest rates, and in doing so, to bring down the value of the pound against the deutschmark without anybody—perhaps not even those at No. 10—noticing that we were slowly slithering into the EMS.
As 1992 approaches, and further trade barriers come down, Britain's economy will, unfortunately, have to be submerged and pulled into the stronger economies of Western Europe. The Prime Minister will not like it—indeed, most of us in the House will not like it. However, if that comes about—as I believe it will—it will be as a result of the Government's mismanagement of the economy over the past 10 years and it will signal an ironic and ignominious end to what has been described as Thatcherism and to the Thatcherite economic revolution.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: I shall return to the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the references that he made to water privatisation. I strongly support the inclusion of that proposal in the Gracious Speech. I say that as a former Secretary of State for the Environment who went through the annual expenditure round. Year after year, I saw the processes of attrition whereby the demand-led, index-linked, and consumption programmes of Government pre-empted ever larger claims on national resources. At the end of the day, when the spending departments are up against the wall and the Star Chamber meets, it is the capital programmes that go. The capital programmes went out under the previous Labour Government and in part, though not on the same scale, it was the capital programmes that suffered in the early years of this Government. The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) referred to cuts in council house sales as if they started under this Government. However, we all know that they started in 1976 when the International Monetary Fund came in and precisely the same happened to the investment in the water industries.
The essential strength of my right hon. Friend's case is that he is separating the regulatory and unavoidable responsibilities of the Government from the management and provision of infrastructure, which can be handled by private sector endeavour. What will then happen—I hope that my right hon. Friend has given sufficient determination to this aspect of his policy—is that my noble Friend Lord Crickhowell will be in the driving seat to improve the standards because he will not be preoccupied with the public expenditure consequences of what he is trying to do.
The issue is simple. Do we want to move faster towards higher environmental standards in water provision and sewage disposal? I believe that the Government and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State are right to say that we do and it cannot be denied that a major way of achieving that is to privatise the water industry and allow the Government to do what Government are unavoidably responsible for doing, which is to enhance the standards of environmental protection. In the last resort it is that by which the measure stands or fails. It is a measure for environmental protection and is to be welcomed in that context.
I understand the Labour party's resentment of the statements that we are making. However, in 1979 we inherited a programme of reduced capital expenditure. The Opposition did not see the consequences of the cuts that they were making. I say at once that they did not make the cuts of their own volition but were forced to do so by the random and reckless economic policies that they pursued. If we want to escape from that, the essential first

step is to separate the regulatory processes from the investment processes. I strongly support that process and I hope that my noble Friend Lord Crickhowell will take the high environmental road available to him.
I want to make three points about the Government's environmental policies and get them in a context which is wider than national policy. First, without a doubt, the environment has now become a big responsibility of the Government and I believe that that responsibility will grow. Secondly, the little perceived but important commercial and entrepreneurial opportunities of rising environmental standards are already large and, if carefully administered, they can become dramatically more important to Britain. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Trade and Industry is present to hear the debate.
Thirdly, because the responsibilities have become increasingly significant for the Government and because the commercial opportunities for enhanced environmental standards are so exciting, it would be less than surprising if there were not geo-political controversies on the horizon. I believe that in the environmental debate we will shortly see a re-run of the unilateral peace arguments of the 1960s and 1980s.
Let us have no repetition of the nonsense of Opposition Members when they suggest that it is not the duty or the wish of the Conservative party to achieve higher environmental standards. It is the responsibility of the Government to do that. There will always be somebody in an unfettered market place who pressures the standards at the lower end and thus destroys the environmental standards that it is the Government's responsibility to uphold. The only way in which that can be prevented is by environmental regulation by the Government. The Government, like all preceding Governments, have been deeply immersed in that process.
It is increasingly clear that environmental regulation is not sufficient, even in the hands of the largest and richest country, to achieve protection of the environment in the areas of world concern. It is relatively easy for Governments to agree about the rhetoric, the phrases arid the grand objectives, but it will be difficult for Governments with different backgrounds, attitudes arid practices and at different stages of development to accept the environmental standards that will add up to a global protection of the environment.
The Government are courageously and rightly setting out in a series of speeches their views about the broad issues. However, a growing number of people are advancing arguments against aspects of the Government's policies, attacking one place here and another place there. That is a perfectly legitimate feature of a democratic process and none should gainsay it. I hope that the Government will see the need to produce an omnibus response to their environmental policies. An environment White Paper would draw together the general objectives. It should set out the targets the Government have in mind, the agencies, most of which will be international, with which they see the targets being achieved and some idea a the cost and the pace at which all that could be made possible. It is of paramount importance to Conservative Members to be able to advance behind the Government's environmental case with the legitimate pride that comes with being able to show a coherent approach to the issue. I believe that an environment White Paper would be a significant contribution to the debate.
My second point concerns the commercial opportunities. It is easy for critics of the Government to see them as always interfering or involving themselves in some aspect of commercial activity and, indeed, to view the regulatory responsibilities of Government as being in some way the intrusions of over-anxious or energetic civil servants. That is one way to look at it.
There will be those in the commercial world—usually those enthusiastic about the lowest standards—who will use just such arguments. I very much hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Trade and Industry will perceive a quite different set of opportunities. I remind him—although he needs no reminding—of what happened when the Conservative party introduced health and safety at work legislation in the early 1970s. Some criticised us for intervening, but once we had made such a major step forward to improve the environment of the British people at work a whole range of industries emerged to meet the new standards that the Government had imposed by regulation.
It is quite apparent that this market place of a one nation state is not large enough to have a world impact on the standards of industry. If Europe, as a group of nation states, adopts one standard for each country, it will be the Americans and the Japanese who, through the protection of their market by regulatory processes, will set the world standards. If Britain, through the British Government operating in Europe, wants to influence the world market place and world standards, it must be done in concert with the European single market, which will come into existence in 1992. Our national market will be subsumed in that market place.
The responsibility of Government must be to be sure that, in Britain's self-interest, we seek to influence the standards of the European market place—not only because we want to impact upon the world environmental condition, but because if the British Government do that we shall make the best deal that we can for British industry, commerce and manufacturing interests. There is a fundamental interest in ensuring that within the cohesion of Europe we influence what is happening both for environmental purposes and to secure the job and investment opportunities that a properly regulated environmental process can achieve.
My third and final point is more controversial, but I do not hesitate to make it. Those of us who are veterans of the debate about the modernisation of NATO's intermediate nuclear systems in the early 1980s, which led to the deployment of cruise and Pershing 2s in Europe, were familiar with the many different groups arguing the unilateral cause. I would be the last to suggest that all those groups were supportive of or sympathetic to the Soviet cause, but a significant number of them were. The more that that link between Soviet interests and the unilateral cause became clear, the more discredited became the unilateral cause in this country.
It was something of a nostalgic trip down memory lane for me to read Mr. Shevardnadze's speech in September—incidentally, on the same day that an excellent speech on the same subject was made by the British Prime Minister—in which he referred—[Interruption.] The Prime Minister's speech was intellectually of a very high standard, so Opposition Members probably would not

have understood it even if they could have read it. Mr. Shevardnadze's speech referred to green peace. However, he was referring not to the organisation that leads so many environmental protection causes, but to a link between the old concepts of nuclear disarmament and the environmental interests not only of enhanced standards in the Soviet Union, but of other Soviet interests. It is important that we in the western world understand the linkage that the Soviets now perceive in the new concept of green peace.

Mr. Allan Roberts: rose—

Mr. Heseltine: I shall not give way because I have been asked to be as brief as possible.

Mr. Roberts: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The right hon. Gentleman is not giving way.

Mr. Roberts: Well, the right hon. Gentleman intervened.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is not giving way.

Mr. Heseltine: Mr. Gorbachev specifically wants to prevent West Germany accepting the modernisation of NATO's short-range weapons systems. He also wants western technology to help modernise his economy and thus enable it more effectively to carry the weight of the Soviet defence burden. No one should be surprised at the link in recent Soviet speeches of the nuclear defence issue with the imperative to clean up the environment.
In reality, there has been no reduction in Soviet defence expenditure and it possesses a wholly indefensible superiority of conventional weapons, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary told the House last Friday. The Soviets will seek to persuade the West Germans to legitimise that conventional superiority by failing to modernise our short-range deterrent. They will argue that they want fewer nuclear weapons so that they can spend money thus released on environmental standards. They will suggest that if the West transfers technology to them, they will speed the process of environmental enhancement. I have no doubt that the Government will expose the military fallacy, while taking care not to concede for environmental purposes what the Soviets will too easily exploit for military purposes.
We all know that the Soviet Union, through its space programme and through the sophistication of its weapons systems, is perfectly capable of developing technological excellence if it suits its long-term objectives, but while it spends 15 per cent. of its gross domestic product on a defence programme it will starve its environmental and industrial base. When we, rightly anxious to clean the environment and preserve higher standards, approach those issues, it is of fundamental importance that we do not prejudice the defence interests of the western world by too easily allowing the Soviet Union to get away with maintaining a level of defence expenditure that starves it of the resources to improve its environment.
Environmental issues will have a profound effect on the arguments of the next decade. I strongly support the Government's policy of playing a proper role in that. It will be increasingly international in its approach. I very much hope that there will be a coherent statement,


preferably a White Paper, dealing with those issues in order better to inform those of us who wish to support the Government's endeavour.

Mr. Tom Pendry: Before coming to the main thrust of my speech I wish to make a passing reference to one of the most blatantly ideological and dogmatic pieces of legislation that this Government have introduced—and for this Government that is saying a lot. I am, of course, referring to water privatisation. The Secretary of State was at his most ludicrous when he referred to that, as I am sure the whole House appreciated.
I represent a constituency in the north-west of England that is often referred to as the cradle of the industrial revolution. Much of its infrastructure was laid in the 19th century and is now crumbling. Inadequate but steady progress has been made during the last few years, despite the financial restrictions imposed by the Government, to improve the quality of water, to develop the environment and, crucially, to rehabilitate the infrastructure.
After privatisation, the income generated from water will almost certainly be creamed off into less essential areas. If other privatisation measures are anything to go by, the money will be spent on increased salaries, directors' dividends and the duplication of the National Rivers Authority. I am sure my hon. Friends will agree that the water industry needs investment, not ideology.
The water mains in my region are severely overloaded and outdated. About 600,000 homes are supplied through corroded lead pipes, and 40 per cent. of the main pipes suffer from unacceptable mineral deposits that reduce the standards of our water. Sewer collapses are the highest in the country and average two a day. There were more than 700 bad storm overflows last year, which carried raw sewage into the rivers—half of Britain's total. The problems need to be dealt with urgently, through investment, so that the region's water is at least up to 19th century standards by the time it reaches the 21st century. Public opinion shows that the majority of people oppose the Government on water privatisation. I hope that the Department of the Environment will carefully reconsider before introducing legislation.
I want to deal with one aspect of the Gracious Speech that affects millions of people. It is regrettable that my old sparring partner, the Minister with responsibility for sport, is not present. With the Minister for Water and Planning, he has the unenviable task of piloting through the water privatisation measure. But he has other interests, too. As the miniature for sport, as he is affectionately known these days, he is "irresponsible" for the idea of identity cards for football supporters. I feel slightly sorry for him, because he has the heavy hand, or, more accurately, the knee-jerk response, of No. 10 behind him, aided and abetted by the more irresponsible Ministers from Marsham street.
The very basis of the identity card scheme is faulty. The Government's thinking seems to be that identity cards must be used by supporters to enter grounds; that those guilty of hooliganism will have their cards removed; and that therefore, by definition, football games will end up by being attended only by peaceful supporters. The fundamental weakness of that approach is that the police rarely catch or successfully prosecute hooligans who commit acts of violence, mostly outside football grounds.
The proposed legislation will not help the police, and many senior police have clearly said so. The existing provisions for exclusion and attendance orders are more effective at keeping criminals away from matches than plastic identity cards can ever be.
The Minister contradicted himself yesterday when, in an interview, he said, "Exclusion orders worked." Later, he said that, as yet, there is
no method to stop those excluded from one club from going to another".
Exclusion orders could do precisely that if they were implemented effectively.
Last season, 6,147 supporters were arrested at matches, and only 1,089 had exclusion orders imposed upon them to keep them away from football. If exclusion orders are not the answer, why did the Government introduce them in the first place? Instead of the commonsense approach, the Government have hit upon a populist, tabloid-inspired approach to identity cards. With identity cards, the Government appear to be responding to the perceived problem. However, now that the population at large are being apprised of the true facts, the Government will find that they have miscalculated.
Those 6,147 arrests represented just 0·03 per cent. of the 18 million supporters who went to league games—that is, on average, fewer than three arrests per match. Put in the context of society as a whole—something that the Government have continuously failed to do with the measure—according to the Home Office's own figures, that figure is revealing when compared with the 3·7 per cent. of the adult population arrested in Britain in 1987. On the basis of the Minister's approach, the average citizen will be safer inside a football ground than outside it. It is a good job that the football authorities have not taken that view and over the past few years have taken real steps in line with the Popplewell report recommendations.

Mr. Carlisle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Pendry: Because of the time factor, I shall not give way.

Mr. Carlisle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on this occasion?

Mr. Pendry: I shall not give way on this occasion.
Better segregation, closed-circuit television cameras, close co-operation between clubs, the police and the community and, let us face it, Government-inspired partial membership schemes have all but removed the old problem of violence within grounds. There are still pockets to be worked at, and we all accept that, but just eight of the 2,500 matches played last season suffered reportable incidents within the grounds—I repeat, within the grounds. Clearly, the Government are tackling the hooliganism problem by using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Mr. Carlisle: rose—

Mr. Pendry: I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman knows that I shall not give way to him. I hope that he catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I am sure that he has something useful to say, but I wish to adhere to the strictures from he Chair.
In terms of civil liberties for British citizens, Opposition Members and millions of genuine football supporters


consider the scheme to be grossly offensive. Supporters get no benefit from it. Yesterday the Minister stated that ID cards were
all for the privilege of being able to go to football.
The remark is offensive to many football supporters. Until now, it has been a legitimate right for our people so to do.
However, more sinister in the report is the plan to feed into the scheme police computer files, not just of convicted criminals, but of people who are arrested, people who are suspected of foul play, and supporters who are ejected from grounds, for whatever reason.

Mr. Carlisle: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) has made it abundantly clear on two occasions that he is not giving way.

Mr. Pendry: I have heard the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) so many times that I am sure he will not convince me on this occasion.
Football supporters are clearly being used as guinea pigs to test identity cards for all our citizens. If the Government really believe in identity cards, they should be bold enough to introduce them through legislation.

Mr. Carlisle: rose—

Mr. Pendry: My major objection, not only to the hon. Gentleman's interruptions, but to identity cards, is that they show how much the Government and the Minister with responsibility for sport are out of touch with football. Hon. Members should take just one corner of the capital city of London as an example. Three clubs—Spurs, Arsenal and Leyton Orient—lucidly show the reality of football in 1988. After consultation with the police, the Tottenham Hotspur club is actually removing fences, because they are no longer needed. Clearly, the police believe that Spurs' supporters behave themselves.
At Highbury, the cup replay between Arsenal and Liverpool graphically spelt out the problems that I am trying to illustrate. At 7.15 pm on 9 November, 25,000 supporters were in the ground. At 8 pm, with the kick-off already delayed, about 54,000 were inside, and 6,000 were locked out. The checking of 54,000 identity cards would have created utter chaos. The match would have had to kick off at midnight. The Minister will say that supporters should get to grounds earlier, but how can they do so for a mid-week game? That is the kind of nonsensical comment that we have come to expect from him. His best quote was in a recent article, when he said:
Do you know that there are more people go fishing than go to football, and we have less trouble with fishing".
That shows just how out of touch the Minister is to compare a solitary participatory sport with by far the biggest spectator sport in this country.
At Leyton Orient, the last of my examples, the problems are different. Like many small clubs, it will be driven to the wall by this scheme. It already has difficulty making ends meet. The estimated 56 per cent. fall off in support, according to a national opinion poll this weekend—which, incidentally, showed that twice as many genuine supporters oppose the scheme as support it—could shut

down Leyton Orient once and for all. That is why clubs have pledged support for all hon. Members who oppose the planned legislation.
Identity cards for football supporters are opposed from every quarter. Many hon. Members stand alongside 91 of the 92 clubs which consider identity cards to be costly and irrelevant. The 92nd club—

Mr. Carlisle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Pendry: No, I shall not give way.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made it perfectly clear on more than one occasion that he is not prepared to give way. This is very time consuming.

Mr. Carlisle: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has referred—albeit in a roundabout way—to my constituency. Is it not the custom of the House that those hon. Members who have a constituency involvement should be allowed to make some sort of reply?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is entirely for the hon. Gentleman who has the Floor at the time to determine whether he will give way. The hon. Gentleman has made it clear that he is not doing so.

Mr. Pendry: The 92nd club, Luton Town, proves the point, despite the Minister's utterances. I shall now give way to the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle).

Mr. Carlisle: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy, albeit a little late. As he rightly said, the representatives of Luton Town are in favour of the scheme. He must accept that the situation at Luton Town is different from what it was two years ago when we introduced the membership scheme. He must also accept that millions of our people are worried about safety in their towns, let alone at their football grounds. Luton is now a safe place for young and old people, even when a football match is going on, and that is purely because of the membership only scheme. Is the hon. Gentleman concerned only with the interests of football clubs, or is he also concerned about people outside football clubs?

Mr. Pendry: If Luton Town wishes to pursue its present policy, it should be entitled to do so. No two clubs are the same, and there should be flexibility so that Luton Town can pursue its present policy, however mistaken we may think it is.
I shall now deal with why I think Luton Town is wrong. The Minister is always quoting Luton Town, and he has claimed that the club has saved £100,000 on police bills. However, if one reads the reports from Luton Town, one finds that during the first two years of its 100 per cent. scheme police costs rose dramatically, and that only last season did those costs fall from their high peak.
The Minister also claims that attendances by home supporters have risen by 38 per cent. Last year, attendances at Luton Town fell by 27 per cent. That was in a season when the club won the Littlewoods cup, reached Wembley three times, was ninth in the league and reached a cup semi-final. Many clubs which do not have such a record, and which have the sort of gates that Luton has, which on average are below second division level, will


go to the wall. Hon. Members who represent constituencies with small clubs should remember that this scheme will almost certainly see the demise of those clubs.
The Minister said that the only arrest at Luton last season was outside the ground. The Minister is not in the Chamber, but will the Secretary of State for the Environment ask him to break down, on the same basis, the national figure of 6,147? Will such a breakdown prove that the vast bulk of arrests elsewhere are also not within grounds? The Minister bandies statistics about, so he has a duty to give us that breakdown.
Supporters are united in their opposition to the scheme. Rogan Taylor of the Football Supporters Association was speaking for millions of genuine football supporters when he said:
This is a plan for football from people who have never passed through a turnstile, they have taken no advice from us the supporters.
Earlier, the Minister with responsibility for sport was wearing his Charlton Athletic tie. He does that when he deems it to he advantageous. He falls into the category of not understanding the game, and his oft-quoted example of hooliganism at the recent Millwall v. Newcastle game highlights that. I am informed by those who were near the Minister at that time that his main concern was to be photographed with Dee Jay Bear, and that the incident to which he referred was hardly noticed by those closer to the occurrence than he was. An identity card scheme would have been of little use at that game, as there were no arrests inside the ground that day.
Finally, and perhaps most damning of all, most police forces oppose the identity card scheme.

Mr. Tony Favell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way to someone who has Stockport County in his constituency?

Mr. Pendry: No, I shall not give way. I dare not say too much about Stockport County, because it is close to my constituency.
As I was saying, most police forces oppose the identity card scheme. Those at the sharp end who are in charge of policing football matches condemn identity cards. The chairman of the Police Federation said:
Surges at big matches will create injuries and possibly fatalities … it will create more trouble on the streets.
Opposition to the scheme could hardly be blunter. I feel sorry for those who live around football grounds, because their problems will multiply if the scheme goes through. Football is a vital part of our way of life and, as an industry, it generates hundreds of millions of pounds for the Exchequer. More important, it gives hours of pleasure to millions of genuine football supporters. The Government are out to destroy our national game with this plan.
Twenty years ago, in his classic book "The Football Man", Arthur Hopcraft wrote:
It has not been only a game for eighty years. What happens on the football field matters, not in the way that food matters but as poetry does to some people … it engages the personality.
Bill Shankly perhaps overstated its significance when he uttered the immortal words:
Football's not a matter of life and death, it's more important than that.
It is clear that the Minister with responsibility for sport has got it wrong. He and his boss in No. 10 are the real hooligans and are setting out to destroy football with this

idiotic scheme. The survival of our national game is at stake. The Government should drop this monstrous proposal before it is to late to save our game.

Mr. Kenneth Warren: I enter this field of combat with some trepidation. I sensed that my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) had gone through the yellow card barrier and was approaching the red card. I am slightly disconcerted to find that my old friend the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) has become a poet in the later years of our parliamentary acquaintance.
The Gracious Speech says:
My Government will continue to … promote enterprise and to foster the conditions necessary for the sustained growth of output and employment.
Competitiveness is the biggest challenge that faces industry. I should like to identify three areas where the Government, who are non-interventionist, have a duty to understand a little more clearly their relationship with trade and industry. They also have a duty to realise that they have a duty as entrepreneurs and promoters of enterprise.
There is no doubt that the Government have helped in industry's remarkable recovery. There are basic relationships between Government and industry that I commend to my right hon. and hon. Friends because they need special attention. First, I shall identify where I think trade and industry and the environment meet. They meet in the area of the needs and problems of transportation. The Government brought more private investment to British Airways, to the British Airports Authority and to other companies through the privatisation process. I should like to see the Government identify their responsibility more clearly to ensure that our trade flows smoothly.
There is a consequential cost to our business efficiency caused by the unacceptable, inaccurate forecasting techniques employed by the Department of Transport. The problem is made worse by the permanent lack of understanding by the Treasury of the duty of the Government to invest taxpayers' money to enable citizens to go about their business efficiently and effectively. That combination does not show the priority that is essential for Britain to be able to trade more effectively. We have only to look at the extraordinary chaos of the London traffic jams to see that the police and traffic wardens do not give priority to making sure that our main traffic routes are kept clear of illegally parked vehicles.
The year 1992 is getting closer, and on 1 January 1993 we shall all be expected to rush forward with new enterprise and to take advantage of new opportunities. There is no doubt that Britain's transport problems are growing faster than the solutions. Nowhere is this better illustrated than in my part of the country in south-east England where we are very much aware that the east-west routes south of London—the M20, the M2 and the M25—are already over the limit at most times of the day and night. The alternative south coast route, which has been promised and which will run through my constituency, will be a series of single carriageway bypasses until the 21st century. That will be the main alternative route, however, for Channel tunnel traffic to reach the south and west of the country.
We are faced with the paradox of the Treasury, which is awash with taxpayers' revenue, failing to invest in


worthwhile enterprises and yet urging the public to invest in such enterprises. With transport, demand is far greater than supply. We are also faced with the extraordinary situation that money is allocated to projects, such as the bypass around Pevensey, and yet that money is not spent. My neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle), and myself, together with other Members representing Sussex, discussed this matter only last week. It highlights the problems that can arise if integrating the needs of different Government Departments goes too far, but the Government must understand the multi-responsibilies of the Departments of Trade and Industry, Transport and the Environment. They must get things going so that our people are ready to offer good transportation services by 1 January 1993.
My feelings about the increases in interest rates are best illustrated by quoting the experiences of two young gentlemen in my constituency who have set up a shopfitting business. It has a turnover of just over £50,000 a year and it is moving ahead. Those men have families and both own small houses. In the past six months, however, their mortgages have just about doubled. They were counting on the cash that they must now pay in extra mortgage interest to further their business.
When the Government consider the macro-economic scale and the value of higher interest rates, I hope that they will consider the plight of the young people whom we have encouraged to be enterprising, to develop their business spirit, and to go out to the market place to sell their endeavours. They are paying a high price for their enterprising spirit. I am sure that the Government will think about those people who are working hard five or six days a week.
We have a non-interventionist Government who have made rapid strides in reducing the size of the Civil Service. In common with my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls), I believe that the Government should consider the burden that is placed on young people because of Government requirements for fiscal returns and information and data of all kinds. Providing that information often consumes between 12 and 15 hours of a working week for a small business.
What will 1992 mean? It is not just a matter of one single, large trade area in Europe which will enjoy all the opportunities that have already been identified. The European Economic Community must be capable of combating the great and growing surge of enterprise from east Asia, and, in particular, from Japan.
There is no doubt that, in 1992, some of our strong industries, such as steel and retailing, will become stronger and that their success will pull other companies through. We must heed the warning of what happened, however, in 1973. Then we thought that we would do well from our membership of the Community, but we found that other countries did better than we did from our entry.
Post 1992, the problem that will face the EEC will be the competitive and economic strength of eastern Asia. Presently, our export record within the EEC is a problem and we must seek to solve it in the next few years. There are only three countries within the EEC—Greece, Ireland and Spain—with which we are in surplus in export manufactures. Our deficit with West Germany is now running at more than £14 million a year, which represents

more than half of our total deficit with the EEC. That is worrying when one considers that West Germany has a high wage economy in comparison with our own.
In the 1980s we drifted from surplus to break even and on to the stage where we now have a serious trade deficit, principally with the EEC. If we consider the way in which our industry has changed since the 1970s, we may learn how to conquer the problems of the 1990s. In 1973, nine companies produced television sets—seven of them were British. The production and design of a television set requires, at best, medium grade technology; it is not the world's most difficult task. Nevertheless, since 1973, all the British companies have gone. Now 11 companies manufacture televisions in Britain and nine of those companies originate from east Asia, principally Japan. In the same period the share of world trade held by eastern Asia has increased from 10 per cent. to 20 per cent.
Technology, even that required to make televisions, is a world growth industry whether it is applied to the environment, transportation, health or Government standards. Although our industries improved during the 1970s and 1980s, they have not kept up with the rest of the world competitively. There must be discussions between Government and industry about how our joint resources can improve our export competitiveness, but that must be done without bearing down on industry or intervening in its strategy.
Nowadays, far too few of our people are coming forward to train as scientists and engineers. The latest information reveals that a quarter of the engineering course opportunities have not been taken up in this academic year. In 1960, we had as many qualified engineers as the Japanese, 250,000. By 1992, the number of our graduate engineers will have doubled, which is commendable until one discovers that, in Japan, that number will have increased seven times over.
One cannot ignore the tremendous drive for quality and for research that is now sweeping, almost like a plague, through most of the east Asian countries. The CBI recently pointed out that skill shortages are becoming a major constraint on output. In 1980 only 3 per cent. of the companies polled said that they faced problems because of skill shortages, but in 1987 that number had grown to 15 per cent. and it is still increasing. We need world quality scientists and engineers to increase our competitiveness, but we are not producing them at the necessary rate.
After 1992, the United Kingdom, as part of the EEC, will face an enormous battle. Presently the export deficit between the EEC and Japan stands at about $18 billion a year. By 1992 that deficit is forecast to rise to $38 billion. That is the deficit with Japan alone, but in 1992 our deficit with the other newly industrialised nations of east Asia will be well in excess of $20 billion.
I hope that I have identified the enormous task that lies before the Government and the European Economic Community. I am not an interventionist, but surely everyone can see that, although the Government may wish to be non-interventionist, they are entwined in the industrial fabric and future of our nation. I ask Ministers to heed that fact and recognise the Government's essential role as an entrepreneur and partner in the progress of our trade and industry.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) described the Queen's Speech as one of "missed opportunities." That is particularly true with regard to environmental issues, and the Secretary of State's speech perhaps explained why.
The Queen's Speech reads:
My Government will continue to attach very great importance to protecting our environment, both nationally and internationally.
I stress the word "continue" because, as progress and action on that front have so far been extremely laggardly, this is not a particularly encouraging commitment from the Government. The attempt to suggest that the privatisation of water and electricity is specifically designed to achieve environmental benefits would be laughable if it were not such a serious matter.
The right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) gave what I can only describe as an excuse rather than a justification for the privatisation of water. It was unfortunate and regrettable that he chose to smear the environmental lobby as some kind of Communist fellow travellers. If that is to be the stuff of leadership from the Conservative party in the future, then it will be the kind of rhetoric that we hear from one-party state dictators rather than from people who are prepared to engage in democratic debate.
The privatisation measures have been in progress for several years, but not once, until the Prime Minister shocked her colleagues with her sudden announcement that she had been converted to concern on green issues, have we been told that they were being brought forward for environmental benefits and that, apparently, that is now the prime reason for the exercise. Ministers must think that the British public are green in the old-fashioned sense if they think that we will swallow that one.
In the days following the Prime Minister's unheralded change of heart, those of us who watched news broadcasts could see that her Environment Ministers were rushing around like headless chickens trying to convince themselves, let alone the public, that they were taking action on the environment and that they had anything in the cupboard that could be portrayed as positive action. They knew full well that, hitherto, their job was to slow down, delay, obstruct and resist in any way possible measures being proposed by others in the United Kingdom and the European Community and internationally to deal with environmental problems. Suddenly, they were putting a green gloss on everything, trying to kid a gullible public that real action was taking place when, in reality, nothing had changed.
The Government will find it hard to get away with that for long because those people who are genuinely concerned about the environment have given the matter a great deal of thought over a long period and know that getting to grips with the environment requires fundamental and philosophical changes. In short, positive action on green issues is incompatible with Thatcherism, and the Prime Minister must confront that problem.
The privatisation measures are included in the Queen's Speech simply for ideological reasons. The Government are as ideological as any Marxist or Socialist regime. The rhetoric from the Tories that now refers to the discipline of the market place and the stimulus of commercial pressure is hollow because the mechanisms for bringing those pressures to bear in respect of basic commodities, such as

power and water, simply do not exist. There is no serious suggestion that consumers will have a choice of where they get their water or electricity supplies. In practice, they will deal with a monopoly supplier, no longer one whose prime concern is public service, but one whose prime interest is profit.
Costs will rise. That is admitted, even by the Government, and it is undeniable. Even before the transfer takes place, the enterprises will be fattened up at the taxpayer's expense and charges for water and electricity will be jacked up.

Mr. Richard Livsey: Is it not true that the privatisation measures for water in particular are breaking the Government's philosophy, as they are not creating competition but are transferring public monopolies to private monopolies, and that the only way that they will achieve profitability is by milking the consumers who will pay for the privatisation? Does my hon. Friend also agree that the Secretary of State for the Environment excelled himself last week when he said in even more flowery language than he used today that he would float the 10 private water companies after privatisation?

Mr. Bruce: My hon. Friend is anticipating what I was about to say. He is right because the Government's excuse for jacking up prices in advance of privatisation is to secure revenue for investment. Perhaps Ministers can tell us what other enterprise could increase prices to its customers to finance future investment. Surely the essence of risk taking is that the shareholders and the City institutions put up the risk capital in the belief that the market will sustain a sufficient return to make it worthwhile.
However, the Government are turning all that on its head. The investors are being given cast-iron guarantees of assured profits for no risk. That is immoral and it turns the public, as consumers of essential utilities, into captive milch cows for international capital. That is the exact opposite of what an enterprise culture is supposed to be about.
It is important to record that the electricity supply industry has been built up as a great enterprise in the public sector. The national grid and its operation is a magnificent achievement, and no one can deny that. Certainly there is room for restructuring. The relationship between the generation and distribution sides can certainly be changed and the dictatorial power of Lord Marshall should be curtailed, but that is no case for privatisation. If the Government's rhetoric were being followed through, all forms of electricity generation would be put on an even footing so that the market could operate. In reality, for strategic reasons, nuclear power has enjoyed massive subsidy and protection, and it will continue to do so.
In the United States, where nuclear power has to take its chance commercially, the industry is dead. No one is prepared to finance new nuclear power stations. Indeed, in the United States, no one is financing any new power stations. Yet the British Government are proposing to force the industry to continue to buy in nuclear power for almost 20 per cent. of the total rather than make its own decisions simply on commercial factors.
However, not even that is sufficient for the Government. They are pledging an open blank cheque from the taxpayer to cover all risks associated with the industry, nuclear waste disposal and insurance against


accidents. In other words, the taxpayer takes all the risks and the investor secure all the profit. No Socialist Government would have ever dared to try such effrontery.
The position is even worse because there is no doubt that, even on the basis of existing technology, using energy more efficiently and backing viable alternative forms of generation could more than replace all the electricity that we obtain from nuclear power and do so within less than a decade. That is a technical and economic fact that the Government refuse to accept.
Pursuing such a course is the one measure that would do most to reduce the pressure of the greenhouse effect and all other forms of air pollution related to the generation of electricity. We should, at the same time, become full members of the 30 per cent. club. The Secretary of State may boast, but Britain is doing less later than any other country, and no one believes that that is something to be proud of. The Secretary of State is proud of the fact that he will host an international conference on the threat to the ozone layer. That could rebound on him if we have not taken steps to phase out CFCs by the time it takes place.
Research and development of renewable energy sources has not only been starved of resources, but has been under the control of the nuclear lobby which has a vested interest in showing that they cannot work. Why else was the wave research programme curtailed just when it was about to become commercially viable? Why have we not made positive progress on a commercial tidal barrage?
We pioneered the development of modern wind power turbines, so why is it that the development has proceeded faster and on a greater scale in California, Denmark, Sweden and Greece? I suggest that wind power is one of the technologies that can create jobs and use traditional skills, especially in some of the older industrial areas. Unfortunately, the rules are heavily stacked against these technologies. For example, wind turbines are rated more highly than conventional units of generation—1·8p per kilowatt of installed capacity as against 1.7p for conventional power stations. Electricity boards will not pay a competitive price for surplus electricity from wind turbines.
The firm of James Howden of Glasgow is just outside the constituency of Govan. It is a pioneer of wind turbines. It is looking forward to building one of the Department of Energy's sponsored wind farms. It will be interesting to be given details of when these projects will go ahead. We await the presentation of a timetable. Representatives of James Howden have told me of the business that the firm could secure from wind farms, coupled with a change in the rating and a simple amendment to energy legislation. It estimates that it could create no fewer than 700 jobs in Glasgow and Renfrew within 12 months. That practical action will follow only if the Government do things instead of talking about them.
How do the Government propose to control the movement of shares after the privatisation of the electricity industry? The Secretary of State for Scotland has given assurances that the separate concerns that he is selling in Scotland will continue to be Scottish and Scottish controlled. How can that be achieved? With the phasing out of the social clause that relates to the hydro-electric board, how can we ensure that remote and rural communities will not lose out in future? These questions

must be answered. How can the Government present their rhetoric about the privatisation of English and Welsh water and expect us to believe that they do not have a timetable for Scottish water? Let us have a clear statement of when they propose to privatise Scottish water or a clear assurance that they have no intention of privatising it because the way that the water industry is organised in Scotland is the model that England and Wales should follow.
It is interesting that the White Paper on the Scottish electricity industry contains assertions about the benefits of keeping the Scottish boards autonomous. One passage states:
The Government … wishes to provide competitive pressures within the industry in Scotland … and considers that the proposal to privatise two companies will achieve this to a significant degree.
I wonder why such an "excellent" argument in that context was not applied to Scottish gas, Scottish telecommunications or the Scottish steel industry? The Government seem to have adopted a selective use of argument.
The Government have created growing concern about their intentions for the future of economic development in Scotland. Scotland on Sunday leaked a proposal about the dismantling of the Scottish Development Agency, which the Government denied. They have only themselves to blame, however, for the mess in which they find themselves over that issue. I advise the Government that quite a good motto is, "If it's not broke, don't fix it." The work of the Highlands and Islands Development Board and the SDA has been widely praised, and to dismantle them in favour of regional enterprise boards that would be run by local business men would be the height of folly. The best business men are running their businesses. If they take over the enterprise initiative, who will man the shop? Much more sensible would be a partnership between the SDA, the HIDB, existing enterprise trusts, Scottish Business in the Community and local authorities. We should move forward in that way.

Mr. Favell: I shall be pleased to give the hon. Gentleman the benefit of my experience. In Stockport, there is an excellent local enterprise agency. It is run by local business men. Stockport is a northern industrial town and unemployment is now less than 6 per cent.

Mr. Bruce: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I can say exactly the same about the enterprise board in my city of Aberdeen. I am pleased to say that it makes an important contribution to the community. I am not criticising enterprise boards, but it is important to ensure that they fit properly into the scheme of things. They cannot take overall responsibility for local development, which is what the Government suggest. Business men are busy running their own businesses and there is a shortage of business men to advise the queue of those who wish to start new businesses. I make no criticism of the enterprise trust movement. On the contrary, I think that it is excellent. I merely say that it is not the complete answer that the Government seem to think it is.
There is a long list of actions that the Government will have to take before they will convince me and others that their present green tinge is anything other than cosmetic. I think that hon. Members have all received copies of the Green Gauntlet, which sets out practical measures that the Government could implement with existing technology. The House will be interested to know whether there will be


a constructive response by the Government. It is worth mentioning a few of the problems with which we must deal.
According to a United Nations economic commission for Europe, by 1993 Britain will be polluting the skies with as much sulphur dioxide as France, West Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Austria, Switzerland, Luxembourg and the Netherlands put together. That is the status that we have achieved. Water authority pollution incidents increased by 9.5 per cent. in England and Wales in 1987. Agriculture pollution in Scotland has increased by 49 per cent. Britain still dumps sewage sludge around its coastline. The amount of hazardous waste has increased from 53,000 tonnes to 81,400 tonnes between 1981 and 1986. We have the greatest output of noxious fumes of any country within the Community, yet we are still lagging behind other European countries in introducing unleaded petrol. Only one in nine garages in the United Kingdom sells it compared with 98 per cent. in West Germany. It may be a niggling point, but it would be impressive if the Prime Minister were to use a Jaguar that had been converted to use unleaded petrol, as it would have to be if it were sold in the United States.
There has been an investment of £24 million on wind research, £4 million on solar research, £1.9 million on tidal research and £935.6 million on nuclear energy. That imbalance will have to he redressed. If the Government are sure that they have their energy policy right, why are they cutting the budget for the Energy Efficiency Office? We should be jacking it up considerably if we are to turn round our energy policy.
Opposition Members need attach no credibility to the Government's stated position on environmental concern until they produce measures that are not cosmetic and advance arguments that are not twisted. They must respond to the facts that have been placed before them. As and when they take appropriate measures, they will be entitled to claim that they have confronted the problems of the environment. As yet, they have a long way to go.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Since we debated the previous Gracious Speech the agony of the Ulster people has continued unabated. The IRA campaign of violence has claimed more victims, broken more homes and left more widows and orphans. That is the harsh reality of the situation in Northern Ireland. Far from being eradicated and eliminated, IRA terrorism is on the increase. Recently Sir Jack Hermon, the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, warned us that the IRA is now better equipped than ever before and that Ulster must brace itself for an horrific end to the year.
Ninety-two people have died already this year as a result of terrorism in the Province. That must be compared with the total of 54 who died as a result of terrorism throughout 1985. It is clear that the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement has not brought the peace, reconciliation and stability which was promised. It has led instead to more deaths in the Province, greater instability and greater polarisation between the communities.
Some of the events of last week were not reported in the national press. At the beginning of the week, a 600 lb bomb was placed just outside the Army base in North Howard street. When it exploded, it injured eight or nine soldiers and caused tremendous damage to the base. It

caused severe damage to many houses. Many people, both elderly and young, along with their families, were badly shaken by the explosion. No warning was given. It was only by the mercy of Almighty God that there were not many more injuries or even deaths. How is it that the IRA is able to place such a massive device on the perimeter of a major Army base in west Belfast? Among those who died was an RUC reserve constable, William Monteith, of Castlederg. He was murdered.
Tuesday witnessed a murder attempt on an RUC constable carrying out his duties in connection with the Royal visit. Also on Tuesday there was an IRA rocket attack on an RUC patrol at Castlewellan and an attack on the police headquarters in Strand road in Londonderry. On Wednesday there was an horrific IRA attack at Benburb on an unmanned police station which resulted in the deaths of Emma Donnelly and Barney Lavery, a grandfather and granddaughter who happened to be in a car in the vicinity when the bomb exploded. Eight people were injured, including a 78-year-old woman. On Thursday night a man was shot dead near Coagh, in county Tyrone.
That is the sad chronicle of what happened last week in Northern Ireland. At the beginning of last week the Chief Constable announced that he had to close the following police stations because of cuts: Achalee, Dromara, Waringstown, Annalong, Strangford, Greyabbey, and smaller posts at Larne, Carrickfergus, Greenisland and two in my constituency of Ballymena. The closing of the police stations is a terrible thing.
The Chief Constable discriminated against women police officers who took him to the local tribunal and won their cases to the tune of more than £1 million. Is it not a fact that money must be found from this year's budget and as a result we will have less security in Northern Ireland as the situation deteriorates? The Government should tell us whether that is the case. The stupidity of the chief of police to take on the womenfolk in his own force and to try to discriminate against them has caused the problem. When he was taken to the local tribunal it was found that he was acting out of order. I salute the womenfolk. They had every right to be employed. Why must the people of Northern Ireland suffer because of the Chief Constable's actions? The expenditure on security in Northern Ireland should not be taken from the. Ulster budget but should be funded directly from the Treasury.
I want briefly to welcome other aspects of the Government's policy on security. There is a feeling in Northern Ireland that some of the Government's policies do not go far enough. However, we welcome the fact that the Government are taking the proper course. What disappoints us and causes us sorrow is the fact that the Social Democratic and Labour party has come out strongly against all the proposals. It has said that the proposals will not help and as a result the IRA can continue its insidious campaign. By encouraging that the SDLP has become a party to it.
The tragedy of the proposed oath against terrorism is that it is fatally flawed at the outset. That rule will not be enforced by the Attorney-General or the Law Officers of the Crown. Individuals will have to take it on their own personal responsibility. In the regions where councils would be affected by such a proposal the majority of the councils would favour Sinn Fein councillors. As a result, they will not take any action. However, if a councillor took action and a Sinn Fein or IRA member of the council was


disqualified and lost his seat, it is easy to see what would happen in Northern Ireland. The person who made the complaint and carried it through the courts would find himself in a coffin. That would be the end of the law.
The oath will be effective only if the Law Officers of the Crown are prepared to take on the responsibility. It is interesting to note that Mr. Adams said that he would not take his seat in Westminster because he would have to take an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen, but he would go ahead and take the oath of terrorism if elected to a council seat.
Belfast city council made representations to the effect that the oath of allegiance to the Queen should be restored—Sinn Fein members have said that they will not take that oath. That would deal with the situation far more effectively than the present proposal. The Government must face up to proscribing Sinn Fein and not tinker around with this matter.
The Government have placed great stress on extradition between Northern Ireland and the south and between the south of Ireland and this country. Anyone who has had his ear to the ground in the past few days will notice with concern what is happening in the case of Father Patrick Ryan. It has been said that the Attorney-General in the south of Ireland is deeply anxious because the feeling is that there is no justice in English courts. That accusation has been made against Ulster courts, and it is made continually against the judiciary of Northern Ireland. However, as the extradition in this case is not from the south to the north, but from the south to this part of the United Kingdom, the same argument is put forward. People in Northern Ireland will be looking carefully at this case because it illustrates the ineffectuality of the present arrangements under the much vaunted Anglo-Irish Agreement.
As I promised to be brief, I will finish by paying my tribute to the hospital services in Northern Ireland, and especially to the nurses. Ministers have said that justice has been done to the nursing profession. I do not agree with that. The nurses in Northern Ireland, as well as their counterparts in this part of the United Kingdom, have been badly treated in many instances. The nurses in my area told me that they have been asked to appeal but that they would hear the results of their appeal in three years' time. That is not justice for the nursing profession. The nurses in Northern Ireland deserve the full-hearted support of their public representatives, and they will have it in their battle for justice.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Today's debate is centred on two specific themes—industry and the environment. I want, first, to consider industry, because industry involves the creation of wealth and provides jobs. It is therefore vital to the nation. On many occasions over the past few years I have criticised the Government for their lack of concern about the importance of manufacturing industry to the future of this nation.
The figures have shown that we have been trading continuously in deficit in manufacturing industry, but the Government have said repeatedly that we must consider the picture as a whole and consider tourism and invisibles. I do not dispute that, but at the end of the day

manufacturing industry is a basic requirement of this nation. The Government must be worried about the trade deficit figures of £2.43 billion and the manufacturing deficit of almost £3 billion announced last week.
While I accept that the figures may improve next month and that one or two factors may have affected the figures that were published last Friday, to call the figures a slight freak, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer did on Friday on television, is grossly to underestimate the situation. The underlying trend of the past few months has shown that our trade balance is increasingly worsening. It was announced on Friday that interest rates were rising yet again, to 13 per cent. Inflation is running at 6.4 per cent. and rising.
Since 1979 the Government have said repeatedly that we must accept unemployment, cuts in public expenditure and many other things that are unacceptable to Opposition Members because it is important to control the economy. Although the Government have managed to con the people that they are controlling the economy, it is becoming increasingly apparent that they are failing to do so. No doubt when the people recognise their failure in that regard they will recognise their many other failures.
If we are to export more manufactured goods than we import, we must recognise the problems posed by the high value of the pound and the tremendous burden imposed by increased interest rates, which will make it even more difficult for manufacturing industry to win the world's markets. Since 1979 public investment has fallen by 40 per cent., and the outline of the Government's expenditure programmes shows that it will fall by a further 6 per cent. in the next three years. The Queen's Speech mentions the Government's intention to make further cuts. Some of the cuts are occurring in the environment: spending on the water industry reached a peak in 1974, and in constant terms we are now spending only about two thirds as much as we were then on dealing with the industry's massive problems. That is an appalling indictment of the Government.
Manufacturing industry is particularly important to my part of the country, the north-west. The Government claim that investment in manufacturing industry is just above the 1979 figure, but in the north-west it is 38 per cent. below that figure in constant terms. The north-west is heavily dependent on manufacturing jobs, but they have declined by 38 per cent.—coincidentally the same figure, but in fact the two are linked. Until the Government right the position, unemployment and the balance of trade will continue to present problems.
We want a Government committed to ensuring that the regions can benefit from the Channel tunnel. We need rail and road links to bypass London so that we can get our goods into Europe speedily and efficiently and our people can travel there in the same way. We also want our regional airports developed and are hoping for an announcement this week that Manchester airport will be allowed to spend £500 million on a second terminal. We do not want the airport privatised. After years of development it is a successful airport, developed first by the city of Manchester, later by the county council and then by the consortium of local authorities that has run it since the council's abolition. We believe that that success can continue in the public sector, and we want a rail link to the airport as soon as possible.
The Secretary of State said that he believed the privatisation of water was the Government's greatest


environmental move. The right hon. Gentleman is sadly mistaken. If given the right powers, the money and the staff to do its job, the National Rivers Authority could be a move in the right direction, but the industry need not be privatised for that objective to be achieved. If given powers to borrow on the commercial market, it could do so. If the Government did not limit them, by financial constraints, to passing on costs to consumers, water authorities could work effectively in the public sector, attacking the problems of pollution in our rivers and estuaries and ensuring our water quality.

Mr. Keith Raffan: rose—

Mr. Pike: I do not want to give way, because I am anxious for many hon. Members to speak in the debate.
The North-West water authority has the biggest problems of any water authority in the country, with the Mersey basin and the old mains and sewer pipes which owe their existence to the industrial revolution. Much money needs to be spent. We are also fearful of what may happen to our heritage and our valuable land holdings in the Lake and Peak districts and other parts of the north-west as a result of privatisation.
We are told that we are to have another Housing Bill. I wish that the Government would try to treat those wishing to rent properties in the same way as those who wish to purchase. Ever since 1979 they have been subsidised completely differently. Almost all local authorities have lost Government subsidy from their housing revenue accounts, which has forced up rent levels. We are now told that authorities themselves will not be able to subsidise. That will again mean substantial rent increases in many areas, penalising many people. The Government will say that those qualified for housing benefit will get it back, but other tenants will end up paying for the subsidy, and that is a dangerous way to proceed.
The person who will receive help is someone buying a house, receiving a large income and paying 40 per cent. tax and wanting a mortgage. It is quite different for someone who rents a property and will no longer receive housing benefit. Moreover, almost every local authority has had to cut back on its housing programme, which has affected the provision of sheltered housing, the improvement of stock and the building of new stock.
The Secretary of State said that the housing condition survey, published today, showed that there had been an improvement between 1981 and 1986. He has had the advantage of seeing the report, which Opposition Members have not. If the report shows such an improvement, it is unique, for every other report—political, Church or even with royal patronage—has criticised the present state of housing stock.
The Government say that they intend to do something about housing grants. I support any move that ensures value for money; at present many bad improvement jobs are done by cowboy builders and more checks would be welcome. We shall, however, look closely at the Government's proposals. The grants reached a peak in the free-for-all just before the 1983 election. There were cuts immediately after it.
In some parts of the country the cost of improving a house is not covered by the value of that house after it has been improved. My constituency in north-east Lancashire is a good example. A person can spend £10,000 or £11,000 on improving a house, but he will be lucky, depending on

the area in which he lives, if he can sell the house for £10,000. We must know how the emphasis is to be changed and what assistance the Government intend to give.
There is a deterioration in the housing stock, whether it be in the public or the private sector. The Government must do something positive about it. The Housing Bill that the Government introduced in the last Session did nothing to tackle the housing problems. I fear that the new Bill will not tackle them, either.
Sufficient resources should be made available so that adequate sheltered housing can be provided for all elderly people who need it. Central Government, local government and housing associations must meet the growing need. The Government have announced that they intend to introduce another Local Government Bill. Since 1979 the Government have said that they believe in the freedom of local government and that they will set the town halls free, but they have curtailed the freedom of local authorities; for example, by limiting their financial powers to meet the needs of the communities that they have been elected to serve.
I fear that the new Bill will be another move in that direction. The Secretary of State and many Conservative Members do not believe in local government, but many of their Conservative colleagues on local authorities share my concern. Conservative councillors, and councillors of other parties, agree with Labour councillors that elected local authorities ought to be able to implement programmes that meet the needs of their communities.
The football Bill will do nothing to solve the problem. It is a mistake to call it a football problem. Even when there is no football match, or football team, one can go into certain town centres on a Saturday and be met by hooliganism and violence. People are thrown into fountains, and there are many other similar incidents. Do the Government intend to introduce identity cards for people who go shopping? That is the direction in which they are going.
I was amazed to hear the Minister with responsibility for sport say on television yesterday that if a card was rejected the person would be dealt with when he had passed through the barrier. What nonsense. Anybody who possesses a credit card knows how often the card fails to go through the wipe-through machines when paying for petrol or other goods. The scheme will not solve the problem at football grounds. It will create more problems. It is a move in the wrong direction. The Government need to think again.

Sir Rhodes Boyson: In a debate on the Loyal Address, as in any other debate, it is nice to be able to speak about general principles. It is also nice to deal with general principles that concern one's own constituents. I want to deal with a narrow planning subject—the preservation of the environment in north-west London and in suburbia throughout the country.
I regret the fact that the Gracious Speech contains no proposals to prevent the excessive building in suburbia that is taking place now. There was a meeting recently of north-west London Conservative Members of Parliament. I did not call that meeting, but I was asked to go to it. I realised then that my concern is shared by many other Members of Parliament with suburban constituencies.
There are between 70 and 80 constituencies outside the inner cities and towns that were developed in the 1930s, the 1950s and the 1960s. In the 1930s, those suburbs were the precursors of Thatcherism. Under the Conservative Government of the 1930s there was considerable economic expansion. The rising living standards that followed the economic expansion of the 1930s led to houses being built outside the inner cities and towns, in the then green belt that we now call suburbia. Germany and the United Kingdom advanced more economically in the 1930s than any of the other major countries of the world.
Suburbs also grew up in the 1950s but the great change came in the 1960s. People went to live in suburbia because they knew that their houses would have good-sized gardens, where their children could play on grass. Playing fields were provided. The quality of life in suburbia was much higher than in the towns and cities from which they had come. In the 1930s, families could buy houses in suburbia relatively cheaply. Similarly, compared with the position now, houses in the 1950s and 1960s were relatively cheap. The attraction for people to move into suburbia was the quality of life—the green gardens, the playing fields and the good schools.
Before I am accused of becoming a collectivist, or it is said that I may be intending to cross the Floor of the House, may I make it perfectly clear that I am a free-marketeer Conservative, as I have always been. I am quite happy that there should be no planning laws. I should be prepared to get rid of the lot and see what happened. I object to planning laws that go against the interests of my constituents and those of other Members of Parliament. The job of a Member of Parliament is to look after his constituents and to ensure that the law does not act against their interests, as the planning laws certainly do in suburbia.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way, and also for the work that we have jointly done in north-west London on this matter. Does he not agree that increasingly we have come to realise that the planning legislation is excessively weighted in favour of the developer and against the interests of local residents?

Sir Rhodes Boyson: I agree with my hon. Friend and I shall turn to that point in a few moments.

Mr. Favell: Does my right hon. Friend also agree that the planning legislation is heavily weighted in favour of those who live in privileged circumstances in the open country and against those my right hon. Friend represents in suburbia and those I represent in my own constituency? They say that every available piece of green land should be built on before their view is obscured.

Sir Rhodes Boyson: I promise not to give way again, Mr. Speaker. If I am successful in the ballot for private Members' Bills, I know that I shall have my hon. Friend's support. He will certainly be involved at that stage.
So-called enlightened views—liberal views, in American political terms—have favoured the green belt. The green belt is sacred in some quarters and the inner cities are attractive in others, but nobody is concerned about the 10 million people, of all political opinions, at all

levels of society, who live in suburbia. Houses are being pulled down and playing fields are being built over. That good environment is being destroyed.
I wondered whether this was my personal opinion, but then I found that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) is of the same opinion. We are not on the same side of the party, which demonstrates our breadth of vision. Only two weeks ago the Institute of Economic Affairs, which cannot be attacked for its Left-wing views, published a paper "No Room! No Room!". It was written by Alan Evans, professor of environmental economics at Reading university. He said:
Accessible open space, the space where most people live, primarily garden space, is developed and built over in order to preserve inaccessible open space, land in rural areas which few can visit because the land so preserved is almost invariably private. This environmental swap—the maintenance of the rural environment at the expense of the urban environment—is mostly unrecognised. But is especially ironic when the economic pressure for re-development to higher densities affects urban conservation areas, so that, in effect, an urban conservation area is destroyed (because 'one cannot stand in the way of progress') in order to preserve the rural environment (where, apparently, one can).
Moreover, this reduction in the quality of the urban environment affects all the inhabitants of the urban area. So although owner-occupiers may make capital gains from the increase in the value of their housing, they are made worse off through the reduction in the quality of their immediate physical environment. The only unequivocal gainers are those, not unknown amongst the aristocracy of England, who live in a preserved rural area and own property in urban areas.
I quote that so that the Opposition know that this is also a cross-party speech.
Since 1960, tens of thousands of good homes have been knocked down in suburbia. Some were built after the second world war, when the nation invested in houses with gardens where children could be brought up easily. They are being replaced by blocks of small flats. Houses with gardens are then overlooked by flats, the residents flee elsewhere and whole areas are destroyed. We could have a new inner city in the destruction of what was once a green environment. The green belt I want is gardens and playing fields in surburban areas, which should be preserved to enable all in those areas to enjoy a good quality of life.
I want to suggest a change in planning legislation for the next Queen's Speech—I am sorry that it was not in the Queen's Speech this year. First, no house should be knocked down without planning permission. At present, houses are knocked down and something else is allowed to be built in their place because the council does not want the site to be left empty. Secondly, it should be possible for the householders of the area to appeal against planning permission granted by the council. At present a developer can appeal if planning permission is refused, but if planning permission is granted by the council—whether because of the rateable value of the proposed development or because of vindictiveness against the people of the area whose environment is being destroyed—there can be no appeal. That goes against natural justice. The man who is making a quick buck can appeal, but the local people whose lifestyle will be destroyed have no appeal.
Thirdly, planning permission should be applied for only by applicants who own the land concerned. When I was first elected, somebody applied for planning permission to knock down 700 houses in my constituency. There was panic in the area. The old widow, for example, who had lived in the area since the 1930s was worried. People may


say that she should have sold her house and left the area, but it was her quality of life that was being affected and her family, including her grandchildren, could not stay twice a year with her. Those visits are the life boats of her life. Man does not live by bread alone, and those visits kept her going. But many people sold their homes in panic. I may be a Tory romantic, but I am in good company in my views on this issue.
Fourthly, I wish to comment on the calling in of planning applications. I realise the difficulty of the decisions that have to be made by the Department on which of the major applications to call in. In the past three years, three major planning applications in my constituency have been called in and the Minister has agreed in each case that the green belt of playing fields and green areas should not be destroyed. The important point was that those applications were called in and the matter was referred to the Department. There is no clear line on which to make those decisions. Although it is easy for hon. Members to decide what is of national importance in their own constituencies, the Department deals with many applications. I have great respect for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I know how difficult it must be to make those decisions and it would help him to have a system for deciding which applications should be called in. I should no longer need to write letters about planning applications.
I shall give one example from my constituency. A big superstore was to be built which would have brought traffic on a road to a stop. Everyone in the area was opposed to it, but the council gave permission. The application was called in by the Department. An inquiry was held and the inspector, who was wise and good, took evidence and advised Ministers, who were also wise and good, saying that the development should not be built. However, three years later the same firm put in an application to build a bigger superstore in the same place. That application was not called in.
How was the application of national importance then but not now? I realise that there may have been differences between the two applications, but there must be a better system for calling in. Residents in my constituency will consider it to be against natural justice that one planning application was turned down by the Department whereas a larger development on the same site is allowed. We may have to ask for a judicial review of that case.
The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike)—the hon. Gentleman represents an area that I know well—said that he believed in local government. So do I. I do not like power to be centralised. A centralised state is almost as bad as a Socialist state. There is much wisdom outside Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—which is why we have privatised several industries. I cannot let the Opposition cheer without explaining myself, or I shall be deselected. It is important that there should be a balance of power between central Government and local councils; it is part of the freedom of our society. If one section is in total charge, freedom will die.
We should have smaller councils. I opposed the reorganisation of local government in 1964, which was a disaster. Big tower blocks were built, big comprehensive schools were set up and size was everything. That policy has proved to be a disaster. The creation of Brent was typical. It was opposed by Willesden and Wembley, yet it was pushed through. The Boundary Commission should look again at the disaster area of Brent for the sake of both

sides of the borough. That would have the backing of other hon. Members in the area. It should be split into areas where people know their councillors. They should vote not for a particular party, but for the person who will do the best job for them. As Lord Woolton said, local government should be government and should be local. The big local authority areas have brought about full-time local politicians, the politicisation of local government and other developments that are deplored by hon. Members from all parties.
If we continue to allow the green gardens and playing fields of suburbia to be destroyed, I foresee a future in which millions of acres of the green belt are preserved for the privileged and for American, European and even Asiatic tourists, whereas the residents of what was once green suburbia will have to drive out into the countryside at weekends along traffic-jammed roads to see what shrubs and trees look like and for their children to play on grass. We shall no longer have horticultural societies—we shall have window-box societies. Window-box prizes are already being given in my area. Present planners will then be attacked, just as we attack those who allowed the building of the tower blocks. That was considered to be enlightened at the time, but everyone now asks why it was allowed.
We have done so much damage to suburbia that people there are already appalled. People will say in the future, as they say now, "Why was it allowed?" Everybody from the working class and middle class upwards moved to suburbia, to the green belt, so that they could have gardens and playing fields for their children. To see all that destroyed now will be as disastrous as the tower blocks that have been built.
I am making a cross-party not a political speech. To return to what I said at the beginning, I am a free marketeeer. I say that to clarify the position for any Opposition Member who might temporarily agree with me and to ensure my reselection at the right time. I would prefer a free market that is allowed to sort itself out. Some of the best streets in London—or anywhere—with their big houses were built in a free market, as indeed were the good working-class houses in the north in, for example, Burnley and Haslingden. I would prefer such a free market society. However, if we are to have planning, let us be sure about what we are doing. We should not preserve the green belt areas only to destroy the areas of the little green belts of gardens where tens of thousands, if not millions, of our people live, because if we do that we will destroy the environment for the children.

Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that until 9 o'clock we are in the 10-minute limit period.

7 pm

Mr. Allen McKay: I am pleased that you have reminded me of the 10-minute limit, Mr. Speaker. It is good to follow the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) because we have clashed on many occasions in Committee and have agreed to disagree. However, at least I can say that he has always explained why he has disagreed with me—and that is refreshing.
One thing that the right hon. Gentleman and I do agree on is that local government should remain local. I agree that our problems with local government began in 1964 because if we had not had the 1964 reorganisation we


would not have had our problems in local government. Unfortunately, this Government's policies will destroy local government. It was a sad reflection of that fact that when I was speaking to local councillors this week they questioned whether it was worth being a councillor any more. It is serious when people who have spent a life time in local government question doing so any longer. However, they are right to view local government with trepidation when they read of the legislation in the Queen's Speech. It looks as if central Government is attacking not only the finances but the workings of local government. That attitude will create many problems at a local level.
The Queen's Speech states:
A Bill will be brought forward to reform the law on local government capital and housing finance, on home improvement grants".
In his Budget the Chancellor of the Exchequer decided to alter the system of rebates or grants for renovating houses. In my area and in many of the areas represented by my hon. Friends there are many pre-reinforced concrete houses; many previously belonging to the National Coal Board, or British Coal as it now is, have been passed over to the local authorities and some belong to the local authorities themselves. Altering the system of grants alters the system under which a person can buy his house from the local authority if that is what he wants to do because he may be buying a house that he cannot put on the open market. It may also alter the system whereby a person can get an improvement grant if the house belongs to British Coal and pay for the improvements in that way—

Mr. Alan Meale: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is hypocritical of the Government to proceed with the privatisation of the energy supply industry at a time when Ministers are giving assurances that former NCB houses will not be up for tender or auction without first being offered to local authorities or proper housing associations? Is my hon. Friend aware that 168 houses in Nottinghamshire have been put up for tender without going through that process, despite the assurances that were given?

Mr. McKay: It is regrettable, but my hon. Friend is right. I thought that there was an understanding on a formula to be adopted before reaching the final stage of putting the houses on the open market. If British Coal has decided to go another way, it is regrettable. I have had similar instances in my constituency and know of the problems of the tenants of such houses.
I turn now to homelessness. It will be very regrettable if we change the definition of homelessness to rooflessness. There are rumours about the involvement of private institutions. It will be regrettable if a person who is already down and homeless is subjected to that. I hope that the Government will not go that way.
I refer now to an issue that has already been referred to today—nurses' pay and the National Health Service. Whoever advised the Secretary of State for Health to give a wage increase at the same time as undertaking a regrading exercise should be sacked. If the Secretary of State knew about that and went along with it, it is time that he looked about as well. It is fundamental to any industrial relations policy that one should never give a wage increase at the same time as undertaking a reorganisation or regrading. The regrading should be carried out either

before the increase is given or about three years later. It is known to be a disaster if both are given together, but that is what has happened. Somebody must have worked really hard to be able to put £2 billion forward as a wage increase for nurses only to have them then go on strike. The Secretary of State should look carefully at what has happened.
I should now like to ask a number of pertinent questions about the privatisation of electricity. We know that the electricity industry will be organised into three blocks: big G, little G or whatever, and the redistribution board. It is a fact that out of our five advanced gas-cooled reactors three are not working. Millions of pounds of taxpayers' money is being poured into trying to get those stations working before privatisation. The Secretary of State for Energy is always reminding us of the fact that it is taxpayers' money.
The Magnox power stations will be taken out of use in between five and 10 years time—10 years at the most. Therefore, we have 10 Magnox power stations that will be out of use within 10 years, three AGRs that are not working, two pressurised water reactors that are working and four PWRs are required at a cost of £6 billion. No one will buy shares in an industry that will have to fork out £6 billion for four power stations, no one will buy shares in an industry that has three AGRs that will need to be written off and no one will buy shares in an industry that will have to pick up a £3 billion bill for getting rid of nuclear waste. Either the Government can ringfence the nuclear industry and take the cost of nuclear generation out of electricity charges and pay for it themselves—if they do that the taxpayers will be paying for it—or the cost will be borne by electricity consumers. The Government should tell us exactly what they intend doing and tell the future shareholders what will be required of them.
It is wrong for the Government to privatise the water industry. We want to know about the land that belongs to the water authorities now. We should not forget that the water authorities belonged to local government at one time and that local government has never been recompensed for the water authorities being nationalised. We should certainly look for recompense now that the water authorities are to be privatised.
What will happen to all the land? Will it be dealt with differently? Will there be protection for the people who use the land for recreational purposes? Will the waterways, which are also used for recreation, be protected? Will we be able to use the pathways that cross the land just as we do now, without any charge? Are authorities to be brought into being which will not only increase the price of water but deny access to their land?
The Government are bringing green issues into water privatisation simply to camouflage the cost of the privatisation because they know that thousands of miles of sewage pipes and thousands of miles of lead water pipes need replacing. If those replacements are to be made under private enterprise and the enterprise has to make a profit, prices will rise.
What will happen to the people who cannot afford to pay for water? Will their water supply be turned off? Public health is another important local government function. The Government are trying to destroy local government, but here we shall have a serious public health issue.
In Committee, we shall have to consider a water rebate system along the lines of the rate rebate system, as that is


the only way in which people will be able to afford the installation of meters, the rental on meters and the increased price of water.

Mr. Michael Grylls: I shall not take up what the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) said about privatisation because of the lack of time, not out of any discourtesy.
One aspect of the Gracious Speech will have raised a great deal of interest—it is certainly important. I refer to the proposed changes to legislation which affect mergers in industry and commerce. The issue has come to the fore recently. There has been a spate of merger mania during the past few years. The matter has also come to prominence as a result of the advance towards the single market in 1992.
It is important that certain ground rules should be laid down before mergers so that industry knows where it is. There is a need in a free market system for the threat of mergers to keep businesses on their toes. That is a useful weapon, but it is generally accepted in almost every industrialised country that it is necessary to have some regulation of mergers. We were talking about sport earlier. It is crucial to have referees on the playing field of mergers.
It is important to examine history to see whether there are any lessons to be learnt. If we look back over the past 20 or 30 years and compare British industry with that in more successful economies such as West Germany and Japan, we find that we have had a much freer system. We have allowed companies to grow by acquisition rather than by organic methods. That has not been allowed in West Germany and Japan, perhaps because they learned from their special experiences of 40 years ago.
As British industry becomes stronger and as we prepare for entry into the full market, we must ensure that our system is on all fours with the others. Many people will say that we have a much more developed capital market in the City of London. That is true, and it is an asset, but it presents threats to our industry as it is much easier to raise money for very large takeovers. We must try to encourage our industry to grow more internally.
In his Budget this year, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor helped the trend that I advocated. He put capital gains tax and the top rate of income tax at the same level—40 per cent. At a stroke, he removed one of the reasons why many entrepreneurs have gone public. They have floated their companies on the market so that they can get money out at the lower rate of capital gains tax, rather than at the higher rate of income tax, which used to run at 83 or 98 per cent.
There was previously a great temptation to sell a business to maximise success at the lower rate of capital gains tax. I hope that, now the difference has been removed, more entrepreneurs will stick with their businesses. I hope that, if they wish to reward themselves—they are fully entitled to—they will take money out as income.
We must consider what is happening on the continent. Germany, Holland and, to some extent, Italy have much more difficult markets in which to take over companies. I believe in the free exchange of capital in Europe and the world. It is crucial. Britain has benefited from acquisitions overseas. The Government's responsibility is to maintain competition policy within the United Kingdom.
My right hon. Friend Lord Young made that clear in a speech on 27 October, which is published as an attractive and interesting blue book. He issued a warning which we should heed. Talking about the efficiencies which are often claimed to come from large mergers—people talk about the international competitiveness which results from mergers—he said:
but I have to say that all too often in the past the claims have not been borne out by results, and the track record of post-merger performance does not justify our simply taking such claims on trust.
We must remember those words as we approach 1992.
We must maintain the spur of the threat of takeover, but we must also ensure that there is maximum competition in each market sector. Many of my hon. Friends may say that that is all very well, but that we have to make a judgment. There must indeed be a judgment. I am perhaps one of the least interventionist people by nature, but judgments are inevitable in the formation of competition policy.
We had to make a judgment in 1986 in regard to the attempted takeover by GEC of Plessey—a matter which has now arisen a second time. We had to judge whether the merger would reduce competition in, for example, the supply of defence equipment to the Ministry of Defence. It was decided that that would happen, so the merger was stopped.
Policy should maximise competition in each sector of the market. If a merger does not damage that competition, I would be happy for it to go ahead. The other wing of competition policy—the national interest—arises only rarely, as with BP. If we maintain competition in each market sector and encourage companies to grow organically rather than by acquisition, we shall have a more effective industry which is better able to compete in the EC and in the rest of the world.

Mr. George Galloway: One of the themes of today's debate has been housing and the Government's privatisation of it. One of my first serious parliamentary experiences—it was an experience—was sitting on the Committee which considered the Housing (Scotland) Bill. The Bill has been voted for by almost nobody. It had been rejected by more than four out of five Scots at the general election a month or two before. It was wanted by almost nobody except private landlord interests, which are by definition a small number of Scots. It was nonetheless imposed on the people of Scotland. In Committee, it was imposed by an alien majority.
Two English Members of Parliament sat on the Committee. One was the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) and the other was the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean)—the latter a deracinated Scot and the former an elegant London barrister whose experience of Scottish housing is limited, to say the least. They wrote out their Christmas cards between Divisions, but they were there when it counted. When the Divisions came, they voted the Bill through. The pattern was the same when the Bill came before the House. The experience of sitting on that Committee has proved an apt metaphor for how my country is treated by this Government and, more disappointingly and increasingly, by the House of Commons.
The Gracious Speech contains nothing about this question which has become the primary question in Scottish politics and is what I would call the national question. It has come as no surprise that the Queen's Speech is deafening in its silence on the subject. I wonder whether English Ministers of the Crown—I see one Scottish Minister on the Front Bench—realise the extent to which they have come to be regarded as essentially a foreign Government in Scotland. They show no signs in this Gracious Speech of adapting to the alienation that my country feels towards them. It was always said, and I was brought up to believe, that the British ruling elite knew that a bough which does not bend with the wind is in danger of breaking. Yet that does not seem to be the case with the national Scottish question.
The defeats of 1979 and 1983 were followed by the decimation of the Conservative party in Scotland in 1987. It was reduced to a rump Government with 10 Members of Parliament, four of whom had to sit on the Front Bench and the majority of the rest of whom could not in any conceivable circumstances be appointed to it. We have a rump Government of 10 attempting to govern a constituent part of the United Kingdom, a voluntary partner in the United Kingdom.
Instead of flexibility and nous following that decimation, the Government offered the Scots only admonition and insult. The Scots were told memorably by the then Minister for Trade and Industry, now the Secretary of State for Health, that they lacked "the enterprise culture"—Scots, from the land of Adam Smith, James Watt, Logie Baird and the world's finest engineers and scientists. We were told in a memorable editorial in a yellow newspaper to "Stop yer snivellin' Jock." We were told that the Thatcher revolution must be pressed home in Scotland, albeit on an unwilling population. So the poll tax, rejected by four out of every five Scots, had to go ahead and the opt-out proposals, wanted by no one who is anyone in Scottish education circles and supported by not a single leader writer, serious journalist, person outside the Scottish Conservative party, nor even by many members of the Scottish Conservative party, was rammed through. The privatisation of electricity and the steel industry are to be hammered home on this sullen, ungrateful Scottish population, with all the subtlety and resolute approach of Lord North dealing with the American colonies more than 200 years ago.
Increasingly in this House that attitude is seen in all its ugliness. A Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, which we shall debate next week, is the only Select Committee that has not been set up. The Scottish Office is the only Department of State which does not have a Select Committee monitoring its important work. The reason is not because the Scots do not want that or that the Department does not need it, but because the Scottish Conservative party cannot muster enough bottoms to sit on the seats to man that Committee.
With due respect to you, Mr. Speaker, Scottish Question Time has become a black farce. When the doors open at 2.30 pm in stream the obstructive and objectionable louts, bearing questions that someone else has written for them, not listening to the answers, representing English constituencies, never visiting Scotland or knowing anything about it, and doing their

best to provoke and degenerate Scottish Question Time to the farce that it has become. The effect is that the 62 Opposition Members are unable to ask their questions and make their points because English Tory Back Benchers are drafted in to obstruct.

Mr. Favell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it parliamentary to call an hon. Member of this House an "objectionable lout"? I am interested in Scottish questions, I attend them and I listen carefully to what is said, and I object to being referred to as an objectionable lout. I have no objection to Scottish Members taking part in English business and I expect them to show some decorum.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was alleging that any individual Member was a lout. If he was, that would certainly have been unparliamentary. This is a United Kingdom Parliament.

Mr. Galloway: I could say that if the cap fits the hon. Gentleman could wear it, but I did not intend to refer to him in my remarks. You, Sir, know the kind of Back Benchers to whom I am referring.
The result of this arrogance and insensitivity has been an unprecedented rise in nationalism and nationalist feeling in Scotland. Anyone who denies that is simply flying in the face of reality. That nationalism is taking the form, as it did at Govan and as it has done in every opinion poll, pub, work place and street corner, in a virulent hatred of the Government who are imposing these alien policies on an unwilling population. Ministers are intelligent men and must know that what I am saying is true.
I take issue with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition who just the other week made an offensive remark in Scotland when he said that nationalists think with their blood. That was an ill-judged remark. Nationalists are all over the world—in Nicaragua, on the dusty streets of occupied Palestine and in the trenches at Stalingrad in the great patriotic war. Patriots and nationalists do not think with their blood. Many have given their blood against reaction, backwardness, Facism and undemocratic rule. That nationalism which is developing in my country is apparently being deliberately fostered by a Conservative and Unionist Government. If it is not being deliberately fostered, the Government could certainly not have done a better job of it.
The Sovereign is being ill-served by these Ministers whom she has appointed to govern the affairs of the British state in Scotland. Conservative and Unionist Ministers with a mixture of comprador complacency and cynicism are taking her United Kingdom to oblivion. I read nothing in the Gracious Speech which gives me any hope that the Government are bent on a change of course.

Mr. Nigel Forman: I welcome the Queen's Speech as the latest instalment of major legislation from this radical and reforming Government. I wish to make two particular points that relate directly to the two subjects of today's debate, industry and the environment.
I urge my right hon. Friends, in the words of the Gracious Address, to
continue to promote enterprise and to foster the conditions necessary for the sustained growth of output and employment.


That must mean the continuation of the policy of privatisation which has brought a smaller public sector—it is about half the size that it was in 1979—wider share ownership—which is now about three times the level of the 1979 level—and impressive levels of profitability and performance, for example, in the National Freight Corporation and Cable and Wireless.
It is vital that the policy of deregulation, at both national and EEC level, should be pursued wherever appropriate to minimise the burden of compliance costs on the wealth-creating and job-creating sectors. The Government must stick to their macro-economic policy, which has produced the right framework within which we have had seven years of steady growth at an average of 3 per cent. a year. The growth has been well balanced over the period 1981 to 1987, with a real increase in consumption of 3·5 per cent., a real increase in exports of 4 per cent. and a real increase in investment of 5 per cent. That clearly gives the lie to the argument that consumption has been out of line with investment and exports over the years.
However, in one area it is vital that the Government and the private sector should do more than has been done so far, and that is in the provision of rigorous vocational training for non-academic children in schools and colleges and in private sector provision for craft and technical workers' training in industry. A recent NIESR—National Institute of Economic and Social Research—report shows that France produces three times as many trained mechanical and electrical craftsmen as we do, and that West Germany is still further ahead in that competition.
On the vital matter of vocational education and training, I commend to my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench the Financial Times leader on 24 November, which said:
The Government has to put more resources into vocational education and think harder about the division of responsibilities between industry and schools.
Equally, the private sector must do more to train and retrain its employees, particularly when industrial profitability is at such a satisfactorily high level.
Taking as an example engineering employers and unions, it is vital that, rather than go in for excessive pay settlements which are not covered adequately by increased productivity, they should use extra resources to increase still further their training and retraining methods. Otherwise, the inevitable consequence will be that skilled labour will become increasingly scarce in buoyant economic conditions, and profitable firms will add to the dangers of inflation by bidding up pay and other remunerations to poach scarce employees or to retain those they already have. Not long ago British Airways was paying some of its computer operators loyalty bonuses equivalent to one year's salary, to retain the same workers for a further three-year period.
The argument can be viewed in the even wider context of long-term national prosperity and security. I commend to the House an interesting article by Edward Mortimer, in which he asked the rhetorical question:
Which is the more plausible threat to British national security in the next 10 or 20 years, that the country might be occupied by a foreign invader, or that its population might become little more than a pool of unskilled and largely unwanted labour for more advanced industrial economies?
That is a very serious point, and I very much hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Trade

and Industry and other relevant Departments will continue to press that case even harder on their colleagues in the Government.
When we have a really well educated and trained labour force we will be in a better position to cope with some of the problems that are likely to arise in the labour market, notably those that may be caused by demographic factors in the early 1990s.
My second point concerns the environment. Obviously I commend my right hon. Friends for the green thrust of the recently published Water Bill. However, I urge them to follow up my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's excellent speech to the Royal Society with a whole range of cost-effective and scientifically well-founded environmental measures. I was particularly glad to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment earlier today say that there is to be further legislation on environmental matters later in this Parliament. I hope that it will not be long delayed.
Our aim should be nothing less than to achieve a better quality of economic growth that is congruent with, rather than divergent from, the need to protect the environment. I believe that, first, there must be more encouragement of investment in energy conservation and the efficient production and use of energy, such as combined heat and power. Secondly, we need more encouragement for investment in efficient mass transport systems, especially in London and the south-east and in areas near my constituency. Thirdly, we need more investment in what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has called "sustainable economic development"—that is manufactured goods without built-in obsolescence, environmentally sound vehicles, and biodegradable packaging.
The only future for Britain as an exporting nation that wants to preserve a decent standard of prosperity and quality of life is to move up-market and produce the quality goods and services which our customers around the world increasingly will expect and require. Recent evidence in a Gallup poll published in The Daily Telegraph showed that when given the choice between protecting the environment and holding prices down, a massive majority favoured protecting the environment.
Whatever one reads from an opinion poll, it shows the way that opinion is moving. Nine out of 10, or 88 per cent., of the sample
thought that the Government should pass laws to control industry and other producers of pollution, while only 5 per cent. felt that industry could be trusted to regulate itself.
That opinion poll contains a clear message. Therefore, I urge my right hon. Friends to press on with the course on which they have embarked and ensure that by the end of this Parliament we are able to build an environmental record of which we can be proud.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in her speech to the Royal Society:
the health of the economy and health of our environment are totally dependent upon each other.
Nowhere is that more obvious than in our vital export markets in western Europe, North America and Japan. Increasingly, our sophisticated customers will not accept motor cars which pollute above sensible, internationally agreed levels, machine tools which are unsafe, aircraft which are too noisy and design which is not ergonomically and economically sound.
Our economic future and our rising prosperity will be secure only if we meet the two vital conditions of which I


have spoken. We must produce many more better educated and trained people, especially by concentrating on the needs of the non-academic majority. Secondly, we must design, develop and sell goods and services which are environmentally friendly and do not further degrade the quality of our lives or, at the extreme, our chances of global survival.

Mr. Dennis Turner: As a preamble, in examining the Gracious Speech, turning it about as much as I can and looking at it for as long as I can, I cannot find anything in it that will bring any more hope or any greater pleasure to the people of this country. Indeed, the measures outlined in the Gracious Speech will only exacerbate our problems; in particular the division between rich and poor, black and white and north and south.
I wish to speak about three separate but related matters which concern the Department of the Environment, the Gracious Speech and Government policies in that connection. First, I shall say something about the problems that have been created by the rate support grant settlement. I make no apology for mentioning my part of the world—the west midlands and Wolverhampton. As I have spoken about the rate support grant settlement in general in a previous debate, I now raise the matter of the passenger transport authority grant for the west midlands, which, on the basis of this year's outturn and next year's projected grant, has been cut by £13·1 million. Unless that is amended and changed it will have a profound effect on passenger transport in the west midlands.
It is clear that we shall see the infrastructure of our passenger transport system further eroded and the problems associated with car pollution increased as a result of the cutback in bus services. More important is the marvellous benefit which senior citizens in the west midlands have enjoyed in the past few years from their concessionary passes. For thousands of elderly people the liberalising approach to concessionary fares has been remarkable, and it has been a pleasure to see. The leisure, shopping, recreational and social opportunities for elderly people are marvellous. I fear that as a result of the cut in the grant, concessionary travel may be threatened. The Ministers met the chairman of the west midlands passenger transport committee today, and I hope that as a result of their discussions the Government and the Secretary of State for the Environment will now make some progress on that matter.
The remorseless attack on council house tenants continues unabated in this Session. The Housing and Local Government Bill places even greater penalties—financial and otherwise—on millions of people, and that is in addition to the iniquitous legislation passed during the previous two parliamentary Sessions.
Another particularly obnoxious measure in the proposals for this Session is the restriction of democratic rights and activities of thousands of good men and women in local government and the public services. I resent the fact that people giving their lives to local government and social services are deemed in some way not fit to

participate in the democratic and political life of this country. The issue is, without doubt, the GCHQ of local government.
I shall now deal with the reactionary and doctrinaire privatisation of electricity and water. Opposition Members do not believe the statements made about the improvement of pollution and the environment as a result of the water measure. We do not believe the Government's assurances on the protection of the land, countryside and valuable beauty spots that will be handed over to private companies.
In view of the tremendous mess that the Government made of the recent social security legislation, what guarantees will the Secretary of State give of adequate income support for those millions of people in Britain who are on the poverty line? They will face greater hardships if higher water charges are imposed—whether it is the 7·5 per cent. or 12·5 per cent. that the Secretary of State mentioned, or the 20 per cent. plus, which may be a more realistic estimate. We know that the present water payments are inadequate, and metering will almost inevitably follow.
In my day essential reading for Socialists joining the Labour party was "The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists". I am sure that essential reading for Conservative Members may have been Adam Smith. Robert Tressall identified in a graphic way the unfettered and uncontrolled march of capitalism. He wrote that the ultimate phase of capitalism would be the provision of a huge gasometer which would embrace our planet, after which one shilling of old money would be charged for every gasp of oxygen that mankind inhaled. That is happening to water in this Session, and it may be our air in the next Session.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: The debate combines the subjects of industry and the environment, which are particularly appropriate for my constituency. The constituency of Elmet embraces a chunk of the city of Leeds, the countryside, with the towns and villages that surround it, and includes a wide range of industries. In the short time available I should like to look at how to continue and enhance the industrial advance, which is the base of our local prosperity, and how to address the by-product of that success, which is most evident in the pressure on our environment.
How will the Queen's Speech affect those two issues? The Queen's Speech promises to continue to promote the enterprise culture. That continuity is important. For industry to plan over the medium and long term it needs to have some measure of certainty about the environment that it will be facing in the years ahead. Within that continuity, what new things are promised? Electricity privatisation is promised, and I welcome that. There will be other opportunities to debate the merits of that proposal.
I particularly welcome the fact that the Yorkshire electricity board, one of the biggest of the electricity supply companies, will have its headquarters within my constituency. What that means for my local business environment is that the decision centre of one of the largest companies within the United Kingdom will be located firmly within the region that it serves. That is a vital part of regional policy. Decision centres stimulate the local


economy around them. They create new professional services which overspill in their sophistication into other aspects of the local business community. They create a sub-contracting network, and that in turn feeds new industries. The economy of a region has to be broadly based and must have included within it important decision centres.
I shall look carefully at the measures proposed in the Queen's Speech for merger and competition policy. I believe that over the next decade, with the approach of 1992 and the advent of the integration of the European market, nothing will be more important than a sensitive balance in our merger and competition policy. Regions such as mine need the investment of the European industrial giants, which I hope will emerge, if we are to compete effectively with the giants of Japan and the United States. At the same time, we need our own local plcs and medium and small businesses.
That is by no means an easy balance to strike. Our tax system, as it has existed for many years, concentrates far too much shareholding power in the hands of far too few fund managers too remote from our region. We need to divert the fruits of our prosperity from consumer spending to saving. We should encourage a much broader base of individual savings, so as to have more diversity in the way in which our companies are financed.
With that diversity and prosperity comes the other side of the coin—the growing concern about the environment, which we have heard expressed on a number of occasions in this debate. That applies particularly to areas such as mine, where the countryside butts on to a city and where there are planning worries. So far we have heard various horror stories from different constituencies. I shall offer what I think is an unbeatable triumvirate. There is a proposal for a new town in the north of my constituency, a new motorway in the middle of it and a new opencast site with a river diversion in the south. Moreover, the established communities from north to south in the constituency all feel threatened by excessive and unsuitable development.
All hon. Members have raised such issues in debate, and we have to recognise that the cities, the suburbs, the towns and the countryside are not isolated from one another. They are complementary and interlocking parts of one seamless robe of our environment. It is no good pleading specially for one part without trying to develop a coherent response for the totality.
Part of the problem so far is that we are embarking on an era of rapid change and growth, but we do not have clear policies that offer to local communities predictability in advance of planning applications. We do not have rapid decision making when applications are made, or the promise of strong enforcement of planning regulations when abuses occur. That feeling of unease, in all communities, in all parts of the country that face that problem, is growing and must be addressed.
Reference has been made to the need for a White Paper on planning and the environment, and I strongly support that. When an unsuitable planning application is put forward, people simply do not know what the end result will be—although they do know that it will take a long time to be determined. Even when it has been determined, the developers can keep returning for further bites of the same cake.
What should be the main features of such a White Paper? First, where development is appropriate for an

inner city, it should happen in an inner city. There is no point in developers building new towns in the countryside when areas of dereliction exist which, if they were brought forward as a level-based site, would be far more suitable for such development. The riverside development in London has produced thoroughly desirable environments, close to facilities that people want. There is no reason why such developments should not occur in all our cities in areas currently regarded as derelict. That must be the start of our policy.
Then, in the suburbs and existing towns and villages around our cities, there is a fear of excessive and unsuitable developments. We must consider the role of conservation areas and dramatically expand both their area and their enforceability. We cannot block all developments in villages, towns or suburbs, but the people living there want to ensure that any development is of a density, style, design and character compatible with the local communities. Many of the fears expressed so strongly arise because, all too often, planning powers are inadequate to deal with both density and unsuitability of developments in existing communities.
I welcome what has been said many times by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—that the green belt forms a vital bulwark in our planning regulations. If we do not move to protect our green areas, they will not be there for future generations. There will be no bulwark to prevent the expansion of the existing cities into the surrounding towns, causing ever larger and more soulless conurbations. The green belt is just as important to those living in the cities as it is to those living in the green belt itself.
Finally, I am concerned about the growth in the use of private Bills in an apparent attempt to bypass normal planning procedures. Obviously private Bills are sometimes necessary, and there is a long tradition of private Bills being so used, but there is a growing practice of using a private Bill on slender grounds to carry with it much larger planning implications. The House needs carefully to consider the way in which that procedure is developed.
This is the ninth Gracious Speech under this Government. It is extraordinary that a Government who have been in power for such a long time should have so much new and lively policy making. This Gracious Speech especially reflects how far we have come as a nation during that time, but equally it signposts how much further we still have to go.

Mr. David Clelland: At the beginning of today's debate the Secretary of State for the Environment made the rather curious statement that my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) was seeking obscurity by making a radio broadcast. If my hon. Friend wants obscurity, he should speak from the Back Benches in this House when so few hon. Members are present.
All the predictions were that the Gracious Speech would once again contain proposals further to dismantle public services, to promote private interests and to curtail public freedoms. Those predictions have once again been proved to be right. All that is being proposed will be done in the name of progress and radicalism. The truth is that the Tory party is not about new thinking, is not radical, is not progressive, and is not even very clever—except for the success of its deception. The only progressive move that


the Government are making is progressively to put the clock back, as is inevitable for a Prime Minister who looks admiringly at the Victorian era while talking of the next step forward.
All that the Government propose has been tried before. Although it is true that a strong, viable and efficient private sector is vital to our economic well-being and prospects, if privatisation is so right, so efficient, so unchallengeable in its concept and so self-evident in its progressiveness that it is sensible to hand over to its keeping public utilities that represent the very lifeblood of our nation, why was any change necessary in the first place? It is a measure of the Government's sleight of hand that the advancement to public utilities—something that was done because of the failure of the private sector—is now condemned as being a step back, while the breaking up of public utilities and a return to the old ways is hailed by the Government and their agencies as a step forward.
An unregulated, uncontrolled private sector will sacrifice all for bigger profits—whether it be health, safety, environment or people's livelihoods. As has happened only too often under this Tory Administration, if the assets are more profitable than the product, the product will be sacrificed. Making things is not important when making money is fashionable; hence the slump in our manufacturing industry. We have become not a nation of shopkeepers but a nation of shop assistants, all happily selling Japanese hi-fi's and sailing merrily along in what is thought to be a fast flowing current when, in fact, it is a whirlpool that is sucking us all down the plughole. Yet who cares, as long as they are having a good time along the way? People had better start to wake up to what is happening. They should see through the mind-numbing trivia of the tabloids.
The Gracious Speech offers a glaring example of the hypocrisy and double standards that the Government have practised over the past nine years. In the pursuance of tax cuts, they increase mortgage repayments, rents and charges for public services. In the name of wider choice, they drive council tenants out of democratic ownership into the hands of profiteers and speculators. In the interests of profit, they oppose European efforts to raise environmental standards and plan to sell life-giving water to private business and foreign investors.
The Government tell us and the country that public subsidy is wasteful and anti-competitive, yet they deliberately raise the price of electricity to industry and domestic consumers so that they can fatten up the business for prospective buyers. In order dogmatically to pursue a policy of encouraging the growth of the nuclear industry at the expense of coal, and in opposition to their deeply held view that the market should decide, they plan to extract from consumers a tax to pay a reluctant private sector and so ensure the continuance of their discredited nuclear policy.
The Government have been in power for almost 10 years, and yet the real level of unemployment remains at about 3 million. The Government have employed various devices to bring about an artificial reduction in the figures, and they are about to embark on yet another ploy. The Gracious Speech refers to removing
unnecessary obstacles to employment, particularly in relation to women and young people.

I shudder to think what that means, coming from a Government who promoted a White Paper called "Building Businesses … Not Barriers" and who criticised the very planning controls that were established to protect our people and our environment, proposing freedom for business to develop virtually as it pleased and ignoring community interests.
When such a Government talk of obstacles to employment, they are not referring to their non-existent industrial policy or their destruction of 3 million jobs; they are referring to proper wages and conditions, health and safety considerations, and sickness and pension obligations on employers. It is the likes of those hard-fought-for improvements for working people that business and the Tory Government regard as obstacles to employment. Having done their best over the past 10 years to denude the trade unions of power, they believe that the time is now right to give employers the freedom to dictate wages and conditions, as indeed the Government did in the great Victorian era. Another step forward, the Prime Minister will no doubt proclaim. It is more like another nail in the coffin of civilised life in Britain.
The last Labour Government left an inheritance of falling inflation and falling unemployment—something that this Government are still unable to match. Yet, despite inheriting that jewel and improving situation, despite all the benefits of North sea oil which Labour never enjoyed, despite massive income from selling off public assets, which Labour could not have had, despite savings made at the expense of the elderly by ending the link between pensions and earnings, which Labour certainly would never have done, after almost 10 years, unemployment is still almost three times higher than it was in 1979, inflation is creeping back to the 1979 level, and we have the worst ever trade deficit. So much for the so-called economic miracle.
In the midst of all that, such is the Prime Minister's belief in the gullibility of the British people that she can tell us that we have the best Chancellor that this country has ever had. What arrogance and what nonsense, and what an insult to the intelligence of the British people.
On the subject of the trade deficit, perhaps the Minister will tell the House how the interests of trade and industry will be best served if, as is strongly rumoured, the Cabinet have decided to award a substantial order for battle tanks to an American company rather than to the British company, Vickers Defence Systems. Is he aware of the impact that such a decision will have on jobs, to say nothing of the further adverse effects on our balance of trade? Why must Opposition Members constantly remind the British Government of the importance of supporting British industry?
As a northern Member, I ask the Minister—that is, if he is listening—to tell us why our confectionery industry was sold to the Swiss, why our brewing industry is in danger of being sold to the Australians, why our water industry is being sold to the French, and why our defence industry is to be sacrificed to the Americans. Why are not the Government doing anything about that, other than facilitate the process? Is the answer that the Tory Government are the real enemies within?
The Gracious Speech contains no hope for the British people or for British industry. It is the programme of a Government who are deaf to all but those whom they wish to hear. The advice of experts, the experienced and the well informed and the wishes of the majority of people in their


localities are ignored as the Government dogmatically pursue their determination to drag our country back in time.
The Gracious Speech confirms the continuation of policies that are designed to return our country to an era that is long forgotten, and, in terms of the living and working standards of British people, best forgotten. However, I suppose that the Prime Minister will disagree with that. Perhaps she will even say, "We are not amused," as she has adopted the practice of adopting the royal "We", so often employed by Queen Victoria. But this country does not exist for the amusement of the Prime Minister. M.H. Thatcher will never be H.M. Thatcher. The sooner the British people remind her of that in a general election, the sooner our civilisation will stop the march backwards, and the better it will be for all of us.

Mr. Edward Leigh: I remind the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) that it is not only Labour Members who have shown an interest in the replacement of the Chieftain tank. No fewer than 115 of my colleagues have put down an early-day motion in which they express confidence in Vickers' development of a Challenger 2 tank. Concern about that issue is not confined to the Opposition.
I hope that you will forgive me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I deal with an issue that has not received a great deal of airing today. I shall address my remarks to Northern Ireland, and particularly to the industrial and economic development of Northern Ireland. I make no apology for doing that. In a sense, I want to show solidarity from a mainland British Member of Parliament for the grevious state of that part of the United Kingdom and for the threat that it faces from terrorism.
We often blame our Northern Irish colleagues for what we deem to be their parochialism, but we often pass down the other side of the street. It is only right and proper that, occasionally, mainland Members of Parliament talk about the Province and show concern. One person who cannot be accused of passing down the other side of the street is the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I pay tribute to his great efforts. Last week in Northern Ireland I was told that, whatever the political differences may be with the Secretary of State, he is highly regarded for his courage, firmness, ability to listen, energy and commitment to the Province. We should pay tribute to him. By his personal efforts he has attained a significant industrial development in Belfast, which might produce as many as 500 jobs from a Japanese company. He actually went to the far east to secure the order. We should pay tribute to him for that also.
Notwithstanding the great efforts of the Secretary of State and his colleagues, all is certainly not well with industry and the economy of Northern Ireland. There is considerable deindustrialisation. There is also a high level of disposable income, but that is based on over-reliance on the public sector and on low house prices. There is a need, not so much for more public investment, but for foreign investment. After all, what better door into the EEC after 1992 than Northern Ireland, with a willing work force and many development opportunities?
However, foreign industrialists have an over-exaggerated fear about security. Therefore, in the few minutes available to me, I urge my colleagues not to try to

set road blocks on the path towards a solution. I do not pretend to know the solution, but I shall mention a few road blocks.
There tends to be too much of the feeling that the situation is hopeless, that it will not go away, and that there is nothing that we can do about it. I am an eternal optimist. It does no good to state that sort of opinion. There seems also to be too much of the point of view that we can deal with the situation by a military solution alone. That is not enough. There must be a political dimension.
It is significant that one right hon. Member who dealt with the issue in some depth during the debate was the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen). He dealt with the border security problem. If I misrepresent him, I shall be glad to give way to him, but I hope that he was not suggesting that, by dealing with the border issue, we could solve the problem of security. That is not true. If we want to carry international opinion with us, it is not feasible to erect a type of inner-German border fence along the border, even it it were possible to do so. The proposals in the Gracious Speech represent excellent steps. I commend all the legislation that the Government are putting forward.
I hope that my colleagues will not delude Unionist Members into thinking that there is a widespread movement among Conservative Members to have the Anglo-Irish Agreement abrogated. There is no such widespread opinion. If my colleagues say such things, they simply encourage Unionist Members to talk themselves into a blind alley of intransigence. The Anglo-Irish Agreement will survive, not because the Prime Minister or the Taoiseach are concerned about losing face, but because, if the agreement is abrogated, minority parties in Northern Ireland will refuse in any circumstances to become involved in talks leading to devolution. Whether we like it or not, the Anglo-Irish Agreement is with us.
I urge caution also in the Patrick Ryan affair. I hope that he will be extradited. I would not want to comment on his guilt or innocence, but clearly he should face a fair and proper trial. However, I caution against the view that it is a political decision. Under the Criminal Jurisdiction Act 1976 of the Republic, it is fundamentally a legal decision, not a political one. The Attorney-General must be satisfied that there is a sufficiency of evidence on the face of the warrant, and that decision is made on legal grounds. Whether or not Patrick Ryan is extradited—and I hope that he will be—I hope that his case is not seen as a litmus test of the success or otherwise of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
In a very difficult situation, we should try to find ways forward instead of trying to set up road blocks. We should try to encourage our Unionist colleagues—and I do not seek to lecture them—to think about a way forward that will make practical sense. The only way forward is along a devolution path based on a Bill of Rights, proportional representation, and some kind of weighted majority voting. I should not like to speculate on the details. I am sure that, ultimately, some sort of compromise is possible.
Perhaps we could look at the Anglo-Irish Agreement in terms of amending it in a European Community dimension. The powers over Northern Ireland given to the Republic are insignificant compared to the powers given to the Commission over both the Republic and the United Kingdom under the Single European Act. In terms of a European-wide dimension it may be possible for Unionist


leaders to hammer out some kind of compromise so that we can knock heads together and hold talks that will lead to devolution.
Many years ago I read John Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress". That book told of a wicket gate to which one had to find the key to be allowed on to the Delectable Mountain. I do not know the key to the Northern Ireland problem, but it is essential that men of good will should talk together. I do not ask them to agree, but they should at least talk, because unless they do that we shall never defeat the men of evil.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I thought that there might be some advantages in being returned to the Back Benches, but I not so sure about that, because I have had to listen to a debate that has suffered because it has been so broad ranging. I wish that it had been more specific to the issue of the environment, because that is one of the most important issues facing us.
I agree with the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste), who spoke about the private Bill procedure. I am tempted to go down that road because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, I have a special interest in that procedure. I hope that the reforms that we are putting before the House will control what undoubtedly has been happening. Planning permission is being given by the back door for environmental projects that would never have received planning permission if they had gone through the proper public planning procedure.
I should like to concentrate on one matter in my constituency. If the Secretary of State for the Environment were here, I would present him with a bouquet of flowers. It is a quaint continental custom to present men with flowers as often as one presents them to women. My flowers would be rather special because they would be the species called phurnacitis narcissus. The narcissus is a pretty white flower, but in my constituency it is black because it is polluted by the Phurnacite plant. A recent environment programme on the BBC, the New Scientist and various journalists and organisations, have dubbed it the worst industrial polluter in Britain.
The plant makes smokeless fuel, but that term is ironic given the structure of the plant, which looks like something from the early industrial revolution. Its chimneys belch smoke of all colours day and night. What goes up must come down, and it comes down over people's cars, their newly-painted houses, their washing and their gardens. It is an appalling sight.
The plant is a wholly owned subsidiary of British Coal and everyone, including Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, believes that it is a relic of a bygone age. The national energy policy and a desperate need to protect jobs in my constituency, which has the highest male unemployment rate in Wales, have kept the plant open, despite all its critics. It has recently been described as Dante's Inferno mk 2, and that is no exaggeration.
The valley is one of the nicest in south Wales, and this plant is a great blot on the landscape. A 1978 inquiry into the works said:
The confirming influence of the surrounding hills inhibits the dispersal of any effluents and tends to channel them in the

direction of highest population density. Prolonged and severe temperature inversions during winter lead to a build-up of pollution.
When there was no fog elsewhere, very often there was fog in that area.
At the moment the plant employs about 500 people, and in addition keeps hundreds of local miners at work. Closing the plant would have serious employment repercussions for the people in the plant and for the people in the few pits that are left in the area.
In the view of the strong anti-pollution committee that has been formed there, the plant has blighted the prospect of new jobs in the area. That is pure speculation, because there is no hard evidence to confirm that view. That is unfortunate, and it is a weakness of the Welsh Development Agency, the Welsh Office and of those responsible for trying to attract industry into the area that they cannot tell us whether the plant is a disincentive. If the Irish Government can collect statistics of that kind, I do not understand why our Government cannot do something as simple. As the New Scientist put it, Cynon Valley is trapped meteorologically, politically and economically with its pollution. I wish that the Secretary of State were here to tell me precisely what he will do to solve the problems in my constituency.
In 1986 Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution served an improvement notice on the plant under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, but the company appealed against it to an industrial tribunal on the ground, among others, that it could not afford to buy any new equipment. The tribunal upheld the company's case, revealing massive gaps in the present law. In this country there are no legal standards for emissions such as those that exist in the United States.
After pressure from the Secretary of State for Wales, the company recently announced that investment of about £3 million in the first stage of a five-year programme is to be made at the plant that will enable it to use a new and cleaner process. That is what British Coal Products Ltd. tells us. There will be a mild heat treatment process to phase out each of the remaining four Disticoke factories, and the company says that that will result in a considerable reduction in pollution. The managing director of British Coal Products Ltd. told a public meeting recently that that was the case. He said that the process had been tried out in Scotland and that it had worked there.
The people in the area have heard such promises before from National Smokeless Fuels, and now from British Coal Products Ltd., which is simply the same company with a change of name. They have carried out a check in Hamilton on the process that we are told will clean up the environment in Cynon Valley. I have discussed the matter with my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and we are asking for an appointment with the chairman of British Coal so that we can discuss it. Complaints were made about such things as unacceptable levels of coal dust, smells caused by the products produced by the breakdown of molasses used in the process, and coal stones caused by dust emissions due to weather conditions, and there was a general expression of concern at utterly untenable situations that are regarded as having the potential for nuisance and health risk.
That is the process that the company intends to bring into Cynon Valley. Cynon Valley has suffered for 39 years from pollution from this works, and we are now saying that this is unacceptable. The Secretary of State for the


Environment and British Coal must tell us the facts, because we think that the facts are not as the company would have us believe. Apparently the company requires no planning permission to bring this process into Cynon Valley. I find it impossible to square that with the promises made by the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Prime Minister.
The Library has done a good piece of research for us. It tried to obtain an unbiased opinion on the mild heat treatment process, and it has told me that that has proved difficult. A member of the Library said:
one of our senior academics speaking off the cuff has informed me that there is no one in the UK working in this field. Given access to the smokeless fuel plants, there are academics who could carry out the type of measurements needed to assess the hazards of MHT, but unless this happens only the Coal Board know how dangerous MHT really is.
It is ridiculous to hear the Secretary of State say that he will put things right all over the country, and to hear the Prime Minister say:
No generation has a freehold on this earth. All we have is a life tenancy—with a full repairing lease and this Government intends to meet the terms of the lease in full.
The Coal Board has taken enough out of the Cynon Valley and its people. It is time it put something back, and it is certainly time that it cleaned up the environment.

Mr. Keith Raffan: I shall not be as specific as the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), nor as broad-ranging as some of the earlier contributors to the debate. I have considerable sympathy for the predicament of the hon. Member for Cynon Valley. No doubt she well recalls that I spent more than a month there as parliamentary aide to the Conservative candidate during the by-election at which she was elected. I sympathise with the hon. Member for Cynon Valley because of the environmental problems of her constituency.
I want to say a few words about both industry and the environment, the subjects for debate today. The Gracious Speech makes clear the Government's determination to
continue to promote enterprise and to foster the conditions necessary for sustained growth of output and employment.
Increasing enterprise and increasing growth of output and employment are evident throughout the Principality of Wales.
I wish to quote from two pieces of mail that I received at the end of last week. I hasten to add that neither of them is an off-the-record briefing from Mr. Bernard Ingham or from Conservative Central Office. Both are highly objective assessments of what is currently happening in the Principality. The first example is from the regional newsletter of the Welsh Development Agency, Link '88:
Wales is now one of the fastest growing regions in the United Kingdom … in terms of securing new jobs WINvest is the best performing inward investment team in the country … regarding property, the Agency is increasing significantly its expenditure … following vacancy rates falling to their lowest level for many years.
The second quote comes from a leaflet announcing a seminar on "Money for Growth" from four local enterprise agencies in the county of Clwyd, of which my constituency is a part:
Clwyd is booming! Stories about major companies moving into or expanding within the County are a weekly occurrence. British Aerospace, Continental Can, Kimberly-Clark, Pilkington, Japanese firms such as Hoya and Optec—the roll call is impressive. Not since the sixties has the economic climate here looked so good.

Delyn, in my constituency, has the fastest falling unemployment rate of the 38 parliamentary constituencies of Wales, just as Wales has one of the fastest falling unemployment rates of any part of the country. In the past year unemployment in my constituency fell by 31 per cent.; in the past two years it has gone down by nearly 50 per cent. The Gracious Speech modestly pledges that the Government will continue that trend. In Delyn that trend is not continuing; it is accelerating.
Since June, a further 1,000 jobs have been announced and more announcements are in the pipeline. Delyn is but a microcosm of the Principality—

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Come on!

Mr. Raffan: The hon. Gentleman can make his speech later. It does not suit the hon. Gentleman's party political interests to see Wales doing so well because that will mean no Govan in Wales. The hon. Gentleman is well aware that he will have to fight very hard to cling on to his own seat because of the economic boom in the Principality, which has also affected his constituency.
In the past year, the unemployment rate in Wales has gone down 21 per cent. and in the past two years it has fallen 32 per cent. Wales, like Clwyd, is booming. The Principality's economy is being dramatically transformed. Stories of new companies moving into or expanding in the Principality are a weekly occurrence. Last month, Ford announced the biggest ever investment in the Principality, which is also the biggest ever single investment by any motor manufacturer in the United Kingdom—£725 million, or £715 for every household in the Principality. That money will create and safeguard 2,500 jobs. NEC Contract Distribution in Chepstow has announced a £16 million investment, which will mean 240 jobs. Bluebird Toys has announced a £12·4 million investment at Merthyr which will create 400 permanent and 200 seasonal jobs. March Race Electronics has announced a three-year expansion in Talbot Green and in Aberdare which will lead to a total of 1,350 jobs.
Wales has 5 per cent. of the United Kingdom's population, but it has achieved a 20 per cent. share of inward investment projects. That is the highest share of any area in Britain, higher that the 16 per cent. share obtained by the south-east. I am sure that the hon. Members for Cynon Valley and for Ynys Môn(Mr. Jones) would not argue with that. The Government are fostering that growth. They are encouraging it by a larger than ever investment in industry and in the WDA. In 1988–89, the level of assistance to Welsh industry is a massive 39 per cent. more than planned.
Of course there are still black spots and the valleys, in particular, have serious problems. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales announced his valleys initiative in June. That initiative has led to a record factory building programme, a record urban programme, a record house improvement programme and a record derelict land clearance programme, all being carried out by a Conservative Government. In June the then shadow Secretary of State for Wales tabled a motion—he was sacked a month or so ago and replaced by his sacked predecessor. It is almost as difficult to keep up with the shenanigans within the Welsh Labour party as it is with EastEnders; the plot is as complicated as are the


personalities. In June the then shadow Secretary of State for Wales tabled a motion to try to shore up his sagging position which said:
That this House deplores the unacceptable level of deprivation and disadvantage in Wales.
I agree with the hon. Member for Cynon Valley that that deprivation and disadvantage is no more evident than in the valleys. I agreed with the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) when he made that point in his speech. But why did the last Labour Government do nothing about it? They had the opportunity. It is no use the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen saying, as was said today, "It was 10 years ago." It is as though they think that 10 years' penance is sufficient to erase their record. It is as though they think we should all be infected by the amnesia which has broken out in epidemic proportions on the Opposition Benches. It is as though they expect us to forget when Labour was last tested in office. But why should we? Why should we forget how Labour performed when it was last tested? The Labour Government failed abysmally and they did nothing for their own areas in the valleys. It was left to this Government to act.
We cannot be accused of party political advantage as a result of our valleys initiative. After all, the dozen or so seats there are held by Labour with majorities varying from that of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers)—God knows how he does it—of more than 30,000 to that of the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John)—which is marginal!—of 17,000. It is not as though we will benefit in party political terms from the valleys initiative.
The Opposition cannot stomach the fact that we have done something for their political heartland that they never did. They cannot stomach the fact that we have improved the environment, the quality of life, employment and industrial opportunities which the Labour Government lamentably failed to do when they had the chance.
We still have serious problems within the Principality—but they are the problems of success. When we had the Welsh day debate earlier in the year, and in June when we discussed deprivation and disadvantage in Wales, I mentioned that parts of the Principality were suffering from serious skills shortages. In my own constituency there is a shortage of metal workers and sewing machinists. Local surveys need to be undertaken so that we can match skill shortages with the necessary training.
Now, in addition, we are facing labour shortages. One of the fastest-expanding companies in my constituency is having great difficulty in recruiting female labour, despite the fact that 802 women there are registered as unemployed. Last Thursday, the chairman of the Wales tourist board made exactly the same point when he spoke at the annual general meeting of the North Wales tourism council. He said that demographic changes will lead to a very marked reduction in the number of young people entering the labour force. Schemes must be devised to attract married women and retired people back to work.
In Wales we always say that water is a "burning" issue. It dominated the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs during the 1979–83 Parliament. That Committee produced a massive report on water. It also played a significant part in the last Parliament when the Committee carried out an inquiry into coastal sewage pollution in Wales.
In 1984, when we were taking evidence from the chairman of the Welsh water authority, during discussions on the authority's capital works programme, I asked him:
Perhaps you would rather be in the position of a private company so that you would then be able to borrow according to your needs?
He replied:
The proposition has immediate appeal.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) said at the beginning of the debate on the Loyal Address:
the water industry … has for too long been restricted in its ability to raise capital to meet the rising standards, expectations and increasing obligations that have been heaped upon it."—[Official Report, 22 November 1988; Vol. 142, c. 9.]
Privatisation will free the water authorities from the constraints of the Government's external financing limits so that they can borrow more money as they require and thus accelerate their capital programme. That point—the need for freedom from Government financial constraints—was made by the Plaid representative and was argued eloquently earlier in the debate by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). It is of particular importance to the Welsh water authority because it has the longest coastline of any water authority in this country and faces tremendous demands on its capital programme. The authority has 112 outfalls discharging into coastal waters, a quarter of the total for England and Wales. Only 6 per cent. of those are less than 10 years old, 75 per cent. are more than 20 years old and 40 per cent. are more than 40 years old.
I am strongly in favour of water privatisation, but time does not permit me to give further arguments in support of this measure. I hope that I shall have the chance to do so on Second Reading of the Bill and I hope that the hon. Member for Ynys Môn will be here to listen to me again on that occasion.
It is no use the Labour party saying that we could free the water authorities from the EFL and that the capital programmes could be accelerated without privatisation. Why did that not happen under nationalisation? The Labour party did not do it when it had an opportunity to do so between 1974 and 1979. Nationalisation has not served the consumer well, but privatisation will.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Despite the excited hype of the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan), the Government's legislative programme for the current Session shows that they pay scant regard to the real problems facing people in Wales. While Scotland and Northern Ireland are given separate treatment—albeit not in an acceptable form—in terms of legislation, Wales is given no special consideration. Nothing set out in the programme will alleviate the economic problems in many parts of Wales, which have not been described by the hon. Gentleman. He did not mention the collapsing morale in the Health Service, the precarious position of the Welsh language, the scandal of youth unemployment and the enormous problems facing our old people, many of them in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, who face another winter wondering whether to spend their pension allowance on food or adequate heating.
I wish to concentrate tonight on the proposal to sell off the electricity supply industry, having regard to the fact that there is a nuclear power station in my constituency and a proposal to build another. We have been told that


there will be an application for planning consent for a PWR station in the spring of next year. The people of Ynys Mon want to know whether the privatisation of the industry has any implications for the current and proposed nuclear power stations.
Since the Government published their White Paper in February this year, we have witnessed an unedifying power struggle between the Department of Energy and the CEGB over the structure of the electricity industry after privatisation. That has particular significance for nuclear power. The people of Ynys Môn feel very much like pawns in this struggle and, as any chess player knows, pawns are often sacrificed as either side moves in for the kill. My constituents, including those who work at the present power station, believe that they are being kept constantly in the dark, with no power to influence events, while decisions over which they have absolutely no control are being taken.
Eventually, when decisions are taken, both in terms of legislation in this House and in terms of the specific application for planning consent for a new nuclear power station, they will be taken without sufficient regard to their opinions, their jobs, and their welfare. It is their lives, their jobs and their safety with which the Government and the CEGB are playing, yet their views are being disregarded.
The fundamental question is whether nuclear power has a future after privatisation. As the Government have been so reluctant to disclose their plans in advance, we—the people who now feel so powerless—have had to look to leaks in the press for information and, according to the press, the portents for nuclear power do not appear to be good unless, as we have heard many times today, there is a hidden subsidy for the nuclear programme. That is the paradox that faces the Government.
The Government have a manifesto commitment to privatise the industry and they also claim to have a strong commitment to maintain the nuclear programme. The Secretary of State acknowledged in his evidence to the Select Committee on Energy earlier this year that the commitment to maintain a nuclear programme has had a substantial impact on the chosen structure of the industry. In other privatisation cases, the Government have maintained that privatisation would mean more secure jobs and a better service to consumers, and that competition would lead to lower prices. The Government know that they cannot claim that with the sale of the electricity supply industry and the Secretary of State himself acknowledged, again in evidence to the Select Committee, that the Government were advised from a marketability point of view that, if the nuclear power component were too large in any particular company, it would be difficult to market.
We also have the experience of the United States, where they stopped building nuclear power stations in the 1970s. Evidence submitted to the Hinkley Point 'C' inquiry confirms that view. In evidence an electricity adviser to several large United Kingdom companies said that there had been no orders for nuclear plants in the United States for a decade. All those ordered between 1974 and 1978 have since been cancelled. In the United States, nuclear power has caused widespread financial difficulties and depressed share prices of utilities.
When the Secretary of State was questioned on these matters by the Select Committee, he was remarkably coy about the full cost of maintaining a nuclear programme, which could not be left entirely to private industry. How

can the Government claim that privatisation means a better choice for consumers and that an element of competition in the electricity supply industry will lead to lower electricity bills, when it is now clear that institutional investors are baulking at the idea of investment in an industry which has a commitment to provide 15 to 20 per cent. of its energy through nuclear power? How does the Government's free enterprise approach of letting the market decide square with the fact that nuclear power cannot continue as an important sector of the electricity supply industry unless there is Government support or the cost is passed on to the consumer, leading to higher electricity charges?
A leader in The Independent put the case starkly. It stated:
If the Government was really committed to market economics, it would buy its nuclear plant from France, and shut the British nuclear construction industry completely. The Government does not have the courage of its convictions when it comes to nuclear power, and we are going to be left muddling through with a typically unhappy British compromise.
A further report, published by Saloman Brothers investment advisers, said that the main problem with nuclear power was the unknown cost. The cost of decommissioning nuclear power stations was not yet known because it had not been done on a large scale. Sir Philip Jones, the chairman of the Electricity Council, said in evidence to the Select Committee:
All I am suggesting to you is I think it is likely that a private company may well find or may consider the financial and social risks not ones which it would put at the top of the list in support of nuclear and, therefore, in one way or another the nuclear component will need to be underpinned.
The recommendations of the Select Committee show very clearly that it was unhappy with the way that the Government had approached legislation on that matter. It was concerned about the timescale that the Government had imposed to privatise the industry and said:
Electricity is too important an industry for the country to gamble that everything will come out right.
However, perhaps the most damning indictment of the Government's legislation in terms of the privatisation of the electricity industry was when the Committee stated:
The Government has singled out only two factors to justify its decision: security of supply and party manifesto commitment to a continung nuclear programme. It has glossed over the industry's economics, ignored the industry's external costs, and still cannot be sure that the favoured PWR technology is the best available.
How do the Government find their way out of the dilemma? We are told through the press that there is to be a so-called nuclear tax. Is that the Government's answer to the strong warning from the CEGB that it would not accept the risk of building nuclear reactors after privatisation? We are told in leaks to the press that the Bill will require all independent producers above a minimum size to levy a nuclear surcharge on their customers.
There are implications for employment within the industry after privatisation. There is considerable concern at the Wylfa power station in my constituency over the employment of outside contractors and the threat to existing full-time jobs in the short and medium terms. One of the significant arguments used by the CEGB in its case for a second nuclear power station in the area is the economic benefits that would flow from a large investment. It is clear that privatisation would destroy that argument.
Why are the Government still determined to privatise the electricity industry when they face all the problems that are inherent in its transfer to the private sector? They cannot guarantee adequate competition. They are not applying so-called market economics and they cannot guarantee that consumers will obtain cheaper electricity in the long run. I am driven to the conclusion that in this instance, as in so many others, the Government are interested only in their own ideological dogma, and in this case it is clearly divorced from reality. Would it not be far better to leave the industry in the public sector, where such an important utility should be, and give it sufficient resources to carry out adequate research into alternative forms of energy supply? That would provide the Government with the diversity of energy sources that they claim they are seeking desperately to achieve.

Mr. James Cran: I am pleased to see the reference in the Gracious Speech to
firm financial policies designed to bear down on inflation.
It is of course legitimate for Opposition Members to say that the rate of inflation has increased, but I am satisfied that action is being taken by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—[Interruption.]—and by the Government generally to reduce it. I shall be happy in a year's time to confront Opposition Members who are now trying to barrack me. I am clear, having seen the effects of the inflation that was created by the Opposition when they were in government in three regions of the United Kingdom—the north of England, the west midlands and Scotland—that there is no greater killer of jobs or the prospects of companies than inflation. As I have said, I am certain that inflation will have been reduced in a year's time.
I am delighted also to read in the Gracious Speech that the Government
will continue to promote enterprise".
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) that in economic terms the regions of the United Kingdom are doing extremely well. In fact, the northern regions are doing better than the southern regions. Like my hon. Friend, however, I believe that we require to encourage home-grown companies in all regions of the United Kingdom. I say this because it is a fact that when a recession or downturn comes along, subsidiaries of large companies tend to disappear like snow on a spring day.
I am pleased to see the reference in the Gracious Speech to the need for more training for the work force. It is clear to anyone who examines these matters that the economy is moving at such a speed that in some areas companies are beginning to run out of labour, and not only skilled labour. There is a need to bring the long-term unemployed back into employment, and companies, in self-interest, will dictate that this happens.
Before 1979, I saw companies with low morale in the regions of the United Kingdom. There were companies that could not overcome opposition anywhere in Europe or the world. Companies were overmanned and under-performing. Senior managers would use every excuse on the face of the earth to justify their companies' under-performance. Those excuses are all too reminiscent. I used to hear about a strong pound and too powerful unions. We do not hear the union excuse now. It was said

that energy costs were too high and that wage claims were too high—it seemed that companies were unable to resist such claims before 1979. I think that I am entitled to say that since 1979, however, the industrial recovery, notwithstanding the tactical difficulties that may be encountered from time to time, has been nothing short of miraculous. That owes a great deal to the eight Gracious Speeches which preceded the one that we are now discussing. There will be some Opposition Members who disagree with me, and they should examine the facts. If they read the regional economic reports of the CBI, which deal with every region of the United Kingdom, I challenge any Opposition Member to find a reference that suggests that any of these areas are worried about their economic performance. I shall save hon. Members a great deal of time by saying that no region has that worry. In addition if Opposition Members examine the facts—it is clear that they do not often do so—they will find that this year alone there has been a 7 per cent. improvement in productivity growth. Every year since 1979 there has been, on average, a 4·5 per cent. improvement.
I believe that the success of the Government's industrial policy has also been based on a rejection of protectionism. That is something of which Opposition Members are exceedingly fond of talking. They like to talk about artificially protecting United Kingdom industry from the competition outwith this country. I reject that notion. I am delighted that the Government have rejected it in the Gracious Speech and in the ones that preceded it. It is clear that the Government accept, as I do, an open international market place. One manifestation of that approach is that since 1986 United Kingdom companies have invested about £24 billion in the United States, western Europe and Australia in addition to the record amount of capital investment that has taken place within the United Kingdom.
It is no good Opposition Members shaking their heads. What I have said is fact. We know that £20 billion has been invested in company acquisitions in the United States, £3 billion in western Europe and £¾ billion in Australia. Conversely, 500 successful bids have occurred within the United Kingdom involving foreign companies. The United Kingdom need not fear overseas investment in the same way that overseas countries need not fear an inflow of United Kingdom investment. Far too many people—many of them are on the Opposition Benches—seem to ignore the facts of merger policy. We have the usual Pavlovian responses from Scottish Members, and as far as I can see there is not one Scottish Opposition Member in the Chamber.

Mr. Tom Clarke: The hon. Gentleman cannot see very far.

Mr. Cran: It seems that there is one. That is splendid. He might have the opportunity to express his point of view once I have expressed mine.

Mr. Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cran: I shall give way once I have made my position clear.
Whenever a major Scottish company is threatened by take-overs in any way, the first thing that happens is Scottish flag-waving chauvinism. That comes to the fore irrespective of financial or industrial logic. That is exactly the same approach that we hear from Opposition


Members who seem to want a fortress Britain in terms of industrial policy to repel all industrial boarders. When they say that, they do not acknowledge the right of the Americans to say exactly the same, bearing in mind the amount of investment that we have made in America. The Americans could say exactly the same—that if we do not allow their companies to buy into our country, why should they allow our companies to buy into theirs? If we all retreated to such a policy we would all be worse off. The Government are correct to want the free movement of capital—inwards and outwards.
The Government must therefore re-establish what they mean by merger policy especially as they relate to foreign companies. I believe that that merger policy has absolutely nothing to do with trying to save companies from predators whether those predators come from within the United Kingdom or elsewhere. In most of the Scottish cases that I can think of, the predators come from overseas, which I believe to be an irrelevant factor.
The Government must also re-establish the fact that merger policy has absolutely nothing to do with insulating inefficient management or, generally speaking, cocooning them. Merger policy has everything to do with encouraging competition which at the end of the day protects the consumer. I look forward to the legislation referred to in the Gracious Speech, which states:
Legislation will be introduced to reform … the law on mergers
It is clear to me that that is what is required to get the law right and to air in this House and elsewhere exactly what we mean by merger and competition policy.

Mr. Elliot Morley: I want to deal with one of the main aspects of the Gracious Speech, the environment. However, the subject for today's debate is environment and industry. Some parts of the Gracious Speech, in particular the references to changing section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972, will make it far more difficult for local government to support local industry. That support is very important in areas like mine and in the area represented by the hon. Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran), because county councils have done a tremendous job in encouraging industry. My district council has played its part through support for industry and through the enterprise boards which have been established by many Labour-controlled local authorities. That funding under section 137 is threatened, and I hope that the Minister will consider carefully the representations from local authorities before the proposals are finalised.
The two major proposed privatisations—of the electricity and water industries—have major environmental implications and consequences. Before I deal with the consequences, I want to consider the Government's so-called commitment to the environment.
The Nature Conservancy Council has done a marvellous job in identifying and protecting important wildlife habitat sites. However, that organisation's budget is being cut by 5 per cent. this financial year. That does not seem to be a commitment to green issues from a Government who are prepared to slash the budget of their foremost body in terms of protection of the environment. That 5 per cent. cut will almost certainly be passed on to the voluntary conservation bodies which do so much to manage reserves and sensitive environmental sites.
The existing legislation as it applies to sites of special scientific interest is not by any means sufficient or strong enough to protect those sites at the moment. Until March 1988, 166 SSSIs had been damaged, in particular by agriculture. Another main culprit was development.
That brings me to one of my main fears about the privatisation of the water industry. One of the great attractions of the water industry is its large tracts of land. Many people interested in purchasing sections of the water industry must have their eyes on that land and its potential for development. That is a serious threat when we consider what has happened in previous privatisations, in particular the British Aerospace purchase of the Royal Ordnance factories, which were purchased, not for investment purposes or to strengthen them, but to develop the land and sell it off and so make a quick killing through asset stripping. I do not believe that the provisions in the Water Bill protect many of those very scenic tracts of land from such exploitation.
We must also consider the question of access to that land. Large areas of water authority land are currently managed as nature reserves. Will that management continue, and will the voluntary bodies managing them at the moment continue to have access and co-operation? What about charges for the many thousands of people who use water authority land for recreation, including boating, angling or simply for walking? Will their rights be protected?
This debate should have given the Government an opportunity to tackle some of the major environmental consequences of the electricity and water industries. We all know that there is a serious problem with acid rain. We also know that there is a serious problem with regard to the investment needed in our generating capacity. We are also aware that more research is required to develop alternatives. It is no use the Secretary of State talking about nuclear power as the answer to the greenhouse effect. I do not believe that wall-to-wall nuclear power stations is the answer. It is a gimmick to try to justify nuclear power now that we know that the economic arguments do not stand up to examination.
No one involved with the conservation movement could be reassured by the Minister's opening speech, particularly as it was made by the Minister who put forward the idea of privatising nature reserves and who said that property developers are not in it for financial gain. No one can have confidence in his comments.
We need controls in other areas such as the importation of toxic waste. In my constituency we are surrounded by redundant ironstone mines. They are ideal places in which to dump toxic waste. Already a private company has made approaches to use one site, Roxby Gullet mine, as a dump for refuse and waste. The mines have been overgrown for many years and they are sites of particular interest. They are important ecological sites and they could be developed for the benefit of wildlife, the ecology and local people. They could also be developed to enhance the environment and the community.
At the moment there is too weak a restriction on the people who wish to exploit those sites for personal gain. There is too much of the creed of greed and not enough guarantees for the future of the environment and our whole ecological system.
I should like the Government to carry out some of their environmental promises, but unfortunately I am not convinced because their deeds do not match their words.


Perhaps the Minister will confirm that in a recent EEC meeting of Environment Ministers to discuss proposed directives to protect SSSIs and important ecological sites the only two countries that opposed the directives were Spain and this country. It does not give much support to claims that the Government are interested in green issues when they are one of only two European Governments trying to frustrate progress on the protection of the environment.
I hope that when the Government talk about green issues they are talking about genuine progress and protection, and not about the gullibility of those who believe that they are doing something.

Mr. Tony Favell: I am glad to see that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and my hon. and learned Friend the Minister responsible for water and planning are present, because I too wish to speak about environmental issues.
In an excellent speech earlier this evening, my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) explained that the suburban environment was being seriously damaged by the wish of conservationists to conserve the open countryside at any cost. He told us how, in his constituency, gardens were disappearing, playing fields were being built on and all available open space was being developed.
That is happening in the north as well. When I was first elected as Member of Parliament for Stockport there was a farm in my urban constituency; that has now gone. Is a farm any less valuable because it happens to be within a town boundary? In the south of my constituency, a nine-hole golf course that has been operated for years by one of the major employers, Mirlees, is about to disappear as well. Surely that, too, is no less valuable because it happens to be within the town boundary. People living in towns also want open spaces in which their children can play and they can walk their dogs.
Affordable housing, especially for the young, is affected by excessively tight controls. Over the past two or three years northern Members have watched fascinated as southern Members have argued about their housing problems. In the south, Labour Members have suggested more council housing—although, judging by much of the council housing south of the river here, goodness only knows why. Certainly we do not want any more such housing in the north. The Liberals appear to support anything favoured by their constituents and to attack anything not favoured by them. My colleagues in the south seem to be evenly divided between those who want no kind of comprehensive development—they use the phrase, "the concreting of the south-east", although goodness knows how the whole south-east could be concreted—and those led by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who say that the Conservative party is the party of home ownership and that it is essential to provide affordable housing for the young.
I must say that I agree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. A report prepared recently for the Association of District Councils by Bristol university estimated that half the families in the south-east do not earn enough to buy a small starter flat, of which the

average price is now £62,000. That is not good enough, says my right hon. Friend. He said at the Conservative party conference:
Our duty as a party must be to allow for sufficient homes to be provided to house decently all our fellow citizens.
That must indeed by our prime aim. It must certainly come before the conservation of the open countryside at any cost.
The selfishness of those who are prepared to deny the young a home to conserve their own uninterrupted view is breathtaking. That is certainly not what we want in the north where, alas, prices now seem to have taken off. I do not want the "I'm all right, Jack" attitude that appears to have been prevailing in many parts of the south to be applied to my constituents and their children.
Like my right hon. Friend, I understand the importance of the green belt and the narrow belt surrounding existing developments. I do not want those areas to be concreted over, and I should like the derelict land in our cities recycled, but there is a limited amount of that. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North said earlier, it is not recycling derelict land to build on gardens, to erect concrete blocks within feet of bedroom windows and to obstruct every piece of open space in the suburbs where so many thousands live.
The danger signals in the north are there for all to see. The latest property market report of the Inland Revenue valuation office shows an extraordinary increase in the price of building land over the last year, with 57·5 per cent. of that increase in the north-west, 109 per cent. in Yorkshire and Humberside and 127 per cent. in the east midlands. Just picture the effect of those increases on the price of new houses in the north. New houses are so often the choice of the first-time buyer. Picture also the effect on the quality of that type of housing. If the price of land is doubled, people will still have to buy houses, but the quality will go down.
Many of those who live in the country say that they do not want modern houses to be built there because they are not of the right quality, but if the price of land is doubled it will result in poor quality housing. The price of land, therefore, must be controlled and brought down. The only way to do that, as with anything else, is to increase the supply of land. That is the choice: tight planning controls, thereby pricing young people out of the housing market, or relaxing the planning controls, with the result that our children will have the same opportunities as we enjoyed.

Mrs. Rosie Barnes: The future of our country is inextricably linked to its industrial development. I intend to concentrate on one thing that the Government can and must do to enable all our citizens to participate fully in our industrial society and to enable it to grow and compete. They must encourage the development and skills of the work force and enable the skilled members of our society to take advantage of the jobs that are available.
We recognise that some action has been taken to address skills shortages. City technology colleges may make a welcome contribution, but one vital area that may not seem to be of immediate importance will, on closer examination, be ignored at our peril. I refer to child care.
Child care—particularly nursery education—is vital to industry in two fundamental ways. First, without proper care for their children during working hours many able,


qualified and committed women are unable to work. Either they stay at home or they take menial or mundane jobs that have no other recommendation than that the needs of their small children can be accommodated.
Secondly, without taking more seriously the education of the under-fives, we place at risk our future development as a society. The foundations for every academic discipline can be found in early childhood. Children's learning is extremely complex, but recent evidence suggests that the proportion of learning and problem solving before the age of five is colossal—far greater than we appreciated in the past. Computer experience and second language development should start as early as the age of three. Other European countries are taking that course, and we must consider taking it, too.
Women in the work force is becoming an increasingly topical issue as the penny begins to drop that, with the impending demographic changes, the decline in the working age of the population and the increase in the number of dependent pensioners, there will be a shortage of workers in all spheres of life. Recent estimates suggest that by 1993, 50 per cent. of all girls leaving school will have to be recruited into the National Health Service just to make ends meet.
It is not only socially desirable to enable everyone to participate fully in society and in the labour market—women as well as men—but it will be economically imperative in the near future. There is a great reservoir of skill and ability available that is largely untapped at present—that is, women with children. Many mothers simply do not even contemplate working because they know that finding good, affordable childcare is almost impossible. Where good childcare facilities exist, they are invariably characterised by long waiting lists and prohibitively high costs.
There have been signs that the Government are beginning to respond to the need for strategic planning to avert the worst problems of the shortfall in the labour market in the future but, characteristically, there seems to he a feeling that, with the right exhortation, the invisible hand will provide.
It is perhaps hard for a Government who are rooted in so-called Victorian values to be seen to be encouraging women with children to go back to work. I do not expect action that is motivated by a commitment to equality of opportunity from the Government, but the economic case for childcare for working mothers is unanswerable. We now have less than half the number of places in state nurseries that we had in 1945 and only one in five of our children receives proper nursery education. It is time that we committed more of the country's wealth to measures that will not only assist the development of a more skilled and economically active work force in the long run, when the children taking advantage of nursery education come to maturity, but will, in the short term, enable the current skills of women to be fully used.
The Government must be aware of the report on childcare provision that was prepared by Bronwen Cohen for the Equal Opportunities Commission, as part of the European Commission's study. The Government must know about it because they have been deliberating on it for a long time and have, as yet, declined to tell us their formal response. I regret that we have had to wait for labour scarcity to provide the lever to press for the provision of nursery education, but however that nursery education is achieved, it will be welcome.
The report stresses how poor our record is compared with the record of our European competitors, not only in terms of the quantity of provision, but the quality. The report suggests a number of targets that we should set ourselves to improve dramatically the provision of childcare, both to benefit the child and to enable mothers to work if they want to. The first target is that we should provide places in nursery schools for 90 per cent. of four-year-olds and 50 per cent. of three-year olds by 1993. The cost of that would rise to about £650 million a year by 1993 if all those places were funded directly. That is not an outrageous demand—in fact, it was first established in 1972 in a Department of Education and Science White Paper, when the Prime Minister was Secretary of State. The question that we should ask ourselves is not whether we can afford it, but whether we can afford the loss of human potential, both in terms of the working mothers we could make available now, and in the skill of the work force in 20 years' time. The provision of nursery education is not only right but cost-effective.
The Government could facilitate the provision of pre-school daycare and nursery education in various ways. Tax incentives are always an effective means of generating greater private sector interest in new ideas. Tax incentives for joint employer or workplace nurseries would undoubtedly succeed in increasing childcare provision. Adding an incentive to provide places for women without jobs to enable them to train or to return to their education would be to go one step further. One immediate thing that the Chancellor could do is to abolish the mean-spirited tax on employees who benefit from nurseries provided by their employers.
I return now to the vital importance of the educational quality of under-fives provision. I refer to learning through creativity and play, not to cramming in inappropriate primary classes for three and four-year-olds, but with the intelligent, informed expertise of teachers who are specially trained to deal with that age group. That is what is required. Young children should not just be shelved and kept from harm, entrusted to those who are incapable of really understanding their needs, development and potential. They need a high ration of caring, intelligent and well-educated adults and the provision of play if they are to reach their full potential in later life. We need trained adults who are accountable to parents and governors, not just well-meaning do-gooders who are playing school with live children. We need more than just nine-to-three provision. We need an extended day facility where required. What jobs are available between 9.45 and 2.15 for the mothers of children currently in most state nurseries?
As international comparisons starkly show, children who have the chance of pre-school education benefit in later years with greater confidence and a more positive attitude to learning. Damage done by the age of five, especially to a child's self-esteem, may be irreparable. Improving the lamentable statistics on the number of children receiving pre-school education is a vital step in building a motivated, skilled and flexible work force.
We all talk about improving standards in education. No one is absolutely sure how to do that, but one irrefutable way is to take the education of under-fives far more seriously. A comprehensive national policy for children and for educational provision for the under-fives


is long overdue. It will work for all our citizens and it will work for industry. Without it, society and industry will be immeasurably poorer.

Miss Emma Nicholson: I should like to speak briefly on behalf of an industry which does not pollute, which flourishes particularly in Scotland and Wales, which works well in providing high quality work of high pay for women and young people as well as for men, and which requires little Government support. However, one facet of its work is that something so successful attracts predators. I am referring not to mergers or unwanted suitors, but to actual thieves. I speak of intellectual property theft and the computer software industry.
The common buzz word is computer "hacking." It is seen as a graduate's amusement—something graduates train themselves on just for fun. They penetrate particular systems and then withdraw saying that they did not know what a mistake they had made. Talk of viruses and worms is commonplace. It is not the sort of worm that Shakespeare would have welcomed if he had seen it in the bud.
This summer, in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill which is now an Act, we managed to insert a fine of £2,000, which was designed to deter computer hackers. In Britain we still have much work to do in the copyright industry in giving evidence for the European Green Paper, in supporting the Uruguay round of the GATT agreement, in which copyright may be involved in the negotiations, in supporting China in its search for a fresh copyright law The—first ever copyright law on computer software—which may well be in place within a year, and in welcoming the United States of America into the Berne convention, which it joined lastweek—a convention that started 101 years ago when Mark Twain wanted better recompense for his work.
A fine of £2,000 is not enough to stamp out the enormous abuses that will soon affect Government and industry alike. It is imperative that the Department of Trade and Industry brings pressure, and its expertise, to bear on the Home Office, and that industry makes representations so that we get a much more rapid response and a proper criminal law put in place earlier than might otherwise be the case.
I can now do no more than put down a marker that I shall table parliamentary questions and call for the earliest action by the Government on this crucial matter.

Mr. Bryan Gould: Nobody needs convincing that the flavour of the month—perhaps one ought to say colour of the month—is green. That is why we have that amazingly bland and uninformative sentence in the Gracious Speech. It is all language and no commitment, all illusion and no substance. There is, of course, a precedent. Last year, the inner cities were all the rage. They were the fashionable topic, but where are they now? There is no mention of inner cities in the Queen's Speech this year. They have disappeared from view.
The lesson is instructive, but not just because the issues are similar. The Government's conversion to the

environment is likely to be as superficial as their conversion to the inner cities proved to be. The conversion proceeds, not from any real conviction that these matters are of some significance—far from it—but from the meanest and crudest calculations of electoral expediency.
The inner cities had the temerity in the general election to elect Labour Members of Parliament. That is why the Prime Minister said, "we will have them next time." That is why they moved to the top of her agenda last year. There is an equally crude electoral consideration in respect of the environment. The opinion polls show that there is a rising tide of concern about environmental issues. That is why, after 10 years of ignoring them, the Prime Minister has suddenly been converted.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: Will the hon. Gentleman reconcile what he is saying with the testimony given today by Mr. Stanley Clinton Davis, in which he said that in vital respects of waste disposal and toxic waste disposal Government policies are entirely consistent with the requirements of the Common Market? If the hon. Gentleman doubts what I say, I refer him to the official report of the Environment Select Committee's proceedings.

Mr. Gould: I prefer to rely on the much more generally applicable and much more condemnatory statements made by the European Commissioner on many occasions recently.
For both the environment and inner cities, we know that the response has to be merely cosmetic. It can be nothing else. On the environment, a Government and Secretary of State who argue that everything must be left to the market cannot possibly grapple with the issues. The same forces are at work with the inner cities, but they are reinforced by the Prime Minister's hostility to local government and her antipathy to public spending.
The result is that all we have had on the inner cities are political and electoral gestures. We have had the glossy brochures, the cosmetic packages and the £400 a head breakfasts, but nothing has really been done to resolve the problems.
All that fits in well with the new style Department of Trade and Industry under the stewardship of the current Secretary of State. Lord Young is, I suppose, the longest serving Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for quite some time but they are not a long-lived breed under this Government. Perhaps he should have joined his predecessors a little sooner. It is fairly clear from his record that six months is about the limit of his usefulness. Six months give him all the time he needs to design a dashing new logo and to initiate the programme of television advertising for 1992, which is his only contribution to preparing British industry for that momentous occasion. Having done the things he is good at, I am afraid that all the rest has been downhill.
We see that superficiality, lack of engagement and disclaimer of responsibility for inner cities right across the board in the stewardship of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. He may be called the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, but he shows an airy lack of concern for British trade and industry. Despite his title, he seems to imply that the success or failure of British industry has nothing to do with him. It is the market alone


which decides and disposes—that infallible market which must prevail. The DTI's role is simply to get out of the way.
We detected in this afternoon's debate, even from Conservative Members such as the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) and the hon, Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls), who professed to be the keenest of all free marketeers, that even they were anxious about where reliance on market forces would take us. The truth is that if we rely on market forces and see no role whatever for the Government, the DTI, far from being the powerhouse that it can and should be, and is in other countries, is simply a black hole imploding on itself.
The consequence of that is that we miss major opportunities that other countries well know how to exploit. Japan, France, Germany, Italy and even the United States—all successful economies—have a level of Government-industry co-operation that we have never contemplated, certainly under this Government. That means that the role of the Government in industry in co-operating, planning and enabling is simply lost and we are the weaker for it.
We see signs of the irresponsibility of the Secretary of State everywhere throughout his jurisdiction and perhaps, surprisingly, even in matters such as Barlow Clowes. Lord Young simply washed his hands of the obvious failures, deficiencies and derelictions of duty of his Department. That has meant that he has also washed his hands of the fate of 1,800 investors who should have been able to expect better of him. That irresponsibility was compounded by a willingness to mislead and to draw conclusions which could not be substantiated from the Le Quesne report. That report could not attribute and apportion blame because the Secretary of State told those involved to consider only the facts, but no one reading that report could draw the conclusions from it which Lord Young put to another place and which appear to exonerate his Department from responsibility. That means that we must now look to the ombudsman to bring Lord Young to a proper realisation of his responsibilities.
We see similar slipperiness and slipshodness in two further recent decisions by the Secretary of State. After Elders' purchase of Scottish and Newcastle shares and the decision to refer its bid to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission—the purchase raised its shareholding from 15 to nearly 25 per cent.—Lord Young was aghast, slapped the company over the wrist, but left it in possession of those shares acquired against the normally accepted rules. That is a classic example of ineffective rules applied by an ineffectual Minister. That episode demonstrates clearly that it is time we had proper statutory rules that mean what they say and are enforced in the same way and to the same degree as rules are enforced in every other part of our national life.
Even more curious was the recent decision not to refer the El Fayed bid for House of Fraser, despite undescribed, unidentified irregularities in it which, we understand, should command the attention of the serious fraud office. In other words, there were irregularities affecting the bid so serious as to go to the serious fraud office, yet we are told that nothing is to touch the validity of the bid. The Secretary of State's decision on that issue demonstrates a touching concern for the reputation of one of his predecessors, the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit). It is only to be regretted that that concern does

not seem to be reciprocated. The decision is a typical piece of Youngery and adds to the confusion to which merger policy has now sunk.
As the hon. Member for Surrey, North-West said, the Secretary of State presides over the biggest explosion of takeover activity in our history. The assets involved dwarf our national budget for the NHS or for defence, yet the noble Lord seems to have no view on the massive survey and academic evidence that shows that the scale of takeovers is positively harmful to those involved and to the national economy. The Secretary of State seems to have no view on whether it should be encouraged or discouraged, or whether it matters that British industry should fall into foreign hands. He has no recognition of the special problems facing Britain because of the openness of our market to corporate control. He has nothing to say except to parrot the tautology that competition policy is about competition.
The result is a series of bewilderingly confusing decisions on British Airways and British Caledonian, on Rowntrees, on Kuwaiti oil investment in British Petroleum and on Scottish and Newcastle Breweries. Who in the House can now predict what the Secretary of State's decision will be on any given issue, or which way he will jump on GEC and Plessey? That possibility is very remote because we simply do not know what criteria he now believes to be important. However, we do understand that those whose interests are most closely affected are least likely to be consulted.
A prime example of what happens when a confused ideology meets the real world occurs when the Secretary of State occasionally ventures into action, on those occasions when he decides to pursue one of his ill-judged forays into privatisation. When he does that, surprisingly, his beloved market does not seem to come up to scratch or to deliver the goods.

Dr. Michael Clark: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gould: No. I shall press on because we are very short of time.
The National Engineering Laboratory is a successful research establishment of great importance to the Scottish economy, doing very valuable research and providing a forum of collaborative ventures for British industry. For reasons of dogma, it is to be privatised, yet, to the embarrassment and confusion of the Secretary of State, we discover that the only private buyer available has mysteriously disappeared. That confusion has yet to be cleared up.
Girobank is another success story in the public sector. It is a bank created by the public sector by a Labour Government to make good the deficiencies of the private clearing banks, yet again, for reasons of privatisation dogma, we find that Girobank is to be privatised. Yet again the Secretary of State finds that those elusive private buyers are suddenly slipping through his fingers. Those buyers have not materialised, and the price which now seems available is only half the price originally thought to be available. Yet again the consequence is quite unnecessary damage and uncertainty to a successful public enterprise.
North East Shipbuilders Limited is perhaps the most extreme example of dogma prevailing over reality. I heard someone say "stupid". But it does not seem stupid to a
shipyard worker on the Wear. Let us be quite clear that what is now threatening the future of those yards is not the absence of orders. The orders are there and can be pursued. There are orders from Cuba and from West Germany, and there may well be orders from British shipowners in future. There are also reports that the Danish ferries are the object of a purchasing bid by a Greek shipowner. There is no shortage of potential business.
What is stifling the future of those shipyards is dogma. The Government will not allow those orders to proceed, and will not allow the intervention fund help that is required until a private buyer is found. Yet again the absence of a private buyer will be allowed to destroy 2,000 jobs in shipbuilding, 6,000 jobs on Wearside and, most important of all, in the face of all market logic, as the shipbuilding industry turns up in terms of worldwide demand, it will threaten the survival of a major and essential British industry.
Even where privatisation is carried out and regarded as a success in its own terms, it is still bad news. For example, British Steel is to be privatised at a price that means that the taxpayer is defrauded of £200 million. Even at that knock-down price the success of that flotation must now be in jeopardy. Those unnecessary risks are to be taken in order to jeopardise the future of an industry, the long history of which shows that its pattern and cycle of investment and demand make it unsuited to private ownership. Private owners will not stick with it for the time needed and will not provide the investment necessary to preserve its future.
Even more problematical is the privatisation of Rover, which is being sold to British Aerospace. The great salesman himself—that is his only claim to expertise in this deal showed how maladroit he is. First, he maximised market opportunities by excluding all other potential buyers. Secondly, he negotiated a price—or giveaway—from which the European Commission had to rescue him by saying that he had offered £150 million worth of taxpayers' money more than was needed to clinch the deal. Thirdly, he handed over assets to British Aerospace of substantial value. They were so substantial as to confirm suspicions that British Aerospace is involved in an asset-stripping operation and that the Secretary of State does not care a fig for the future of the car industry, provided he can get rid of it from his desk. The Secretary of State likes a tidy desk. Unfortunately, his means of keeping his desk clear is to throw his files into the dustbin or into the hands of anybody who will walk away with them.
In case there is any suggestion that I am exaggerating, let me draw the House's attention to a memorandum from Warburg Securities to its investment clients, headed
British Aerospace. Recommendation: buy. Price 492p.
It says:
Asset valuation: £10·48 a share. The enlarged British Aerospace group—safely delivered yesterday—has assets valued at £10.48p per share—more than double the current share price.
It goes on:
Our property valuation for all BAe, Rover and Royal Ordnance sites itemised overleaf shows that Professor Roland Smith now commands 14,323 acres worth over £2 billion. And we estimate surplus properties to be worth £1·13 billion.

It then lists in substantial detail many of the sites given away to British Aerospace in the deals with Rover and Royal Ordnance. Many of the sites contribute substantially to "easily realisable"—the words of the brochure—surplus land that will net, on its estimation, over £1 billion. That is a scandalous waste and defrauds the taxpayer. It is a matter that should be drawn to the attention of the Public Accounts Committee, and I intend so to do.
That sad catalogue means that it is not surprising that when we draw back and look at the broader picture of what has happened to British industry we find that manufacturing output, having lost 20 per cent. during the early part of the decade, has only just crept back to where it started, that investment is still lower than it was in 1979, that employment in manufacturing has fallen by 2 million jobs, that our trade deficit is heading into the stratosphere, that our investment is worse than it has ever been, and that our share of world markets is lower.
No voice from the Department of Trade and Industry is speaking out for British industry. The Secretary of State's partner in crime—and, typically, the Secretary of State is the sleeping partner—is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is about to repeat the same old mistakes. Having weakened the economy through excessively high interest rates and an overvalued currency, he then unleashed a level of demand that it could not conceivably meet. Now he proposes to punish us all over again by pushing up interest rates yet higher and the pound to an even more ridiculous rate. The Chancellor has his own problems. He has a strategy with no escape hatch. The only way that he can escape is by changing the strategy, but his political credibility would be fatally damaged if he were to do so. That is why we are stuck in this predicament.
What of the Secretary of State? Where is he? What is his view? Do we hear his voice? Does he agree that the balance of payments deficit in manufactures is neither here nor there? Does he say that a £15 billion deficit on our trade is a problem of success? Does he agree that that deficit can be financed by hot money? Does he say that there is no limit to the level to which British interest rates might rise? Does he say that British industry can continue to compete even as the pound rises to 3·20 deutschmarks and beyond? Or does he agree with Greenwells, which said in a research paper published today that the Chancellor's strategy is mistaken, that the deficit will become worse, not better, that it arises because of the competitive weakness of British industry, and that the Chancellor's policies are making that problem worse?
Which is it? Does the Secretary of State go silently and sheepishly with the Chancellor, or does he speak up for British industry? If he disagrees, when will we hear his voice? When will he raise that voice in the interests of British industry? If he agrees and is willing to sit silently by and watch British industry crucified, he must go before more damage is done. We can no longer afford a Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who will not do his job.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister of Trade and Industry (Mr. Tony Newton): Whatever we may disagree about, there is clearly something on which the whole House will agree, and that is that the link between the industrialists' views and the environmentalists' views has been the theme of today's debate. Obviously


industrial and commercial activity can have unwelcome effects on the environment, whether it be planning or pollution. However, that is a case for a sensible and effective system to counter or mitigate those effects; it is not a case against industry and commerce or against economic growth. On the contrary, it is abundantly clear that a strong, competitive and profitable industry within a growing economy is an essential prerequisite for achieving our environmental aims and in sustaining the cost of measures rightly demanded of industry itself as well as in generating the wealth to pay for protecting and improving our surroundings in other more general ways.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) said in his very interesting speech, the very existence of a growing demand and opportunities for environmental protection and the prevention of pollution are themselves an opportunity for new industries to thrive and grow. In an important sense, therefore, the foundation of the Government's environmental policies is the policy that has so significantly raised the level of this country's capacity to generate wealth in recent years. Thus, we have opened choices, including the choice of devoting more resources to environmental aims that would previously have been closed.
In the light of what the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said in the last few minutes, I make no apologies whatever for reminding the House once again of the degree of industrial recovery that has taken place in this country in the past eight years. We have had eight years of uninterrupted economic growth at an average of 3 per cent. That is the longest period of such growth for half a century, I tell the hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] I shall come to the hon. Gentleman's interest in a moment. In this economy, since 1980—[Interruption.] I shall come to 1979 in a minute. Productivity growth in this economy since 1980 has been equal to that of Japan and better than that of all other major industrial countries.
In manufacturing, on which the hon. Gentleman focused, productivity is up by no less than 60 per cent. in that same period. Industrial profitability—the profitability from which the wealth to pay for our environmental measures comes—is at its best level for nearly 20 years, at over 10 per cent. in real terms for the non-North sea sector. Manufacturing productivity, at 9 per cent. in real terms, is at its highest level for many years. Investment in manufacturing is expected to be up 18 per cent. for this year alone.
I have been asked about 1979 and about manufacturing output. The hon. Gentleman will be aware, because he stated it somewhat grudgingly, that manufacturing output is now at record levels. That does not mean that it is higher than in 1979 only. It means that it is higher than in 1974, because it was still lower in 1979 than it had been in 1974. It fell when the last Labour Government were in office. What is more, since 1981, the United Kingdom's share of world trade in manufactures has stopped falling for the first time in a century. That reflects the restoration by British industry of its reputation for the quality, design and performance of its products and, no doubt, the end of this country's reputation as the most strike-torn country in the world.

Mr. Gould: In making the point about our share of world trade in manufactures, the right hon. Gentleman would not want to overlook the best and, indeed, only

recent evidence that we have from the ITEM club, which showed that our share of world trade in manufactures had fallen to 6·9 per cent., its lowest level ever.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman had an exchange with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a debate some weeks ago on that very matter. The reference that he made to the report to which he referred was based on a misunderstanding that has already been cleared up. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This has been a well-conducted debate. We must give the Chancellor of the Duchy a fair hearing.

Mr. Newton: One of the most striking things about the British economy is that it is not only our own investors who have shown so much willingness and confidence to invest in our country, but those from overseas as well. I have with me some figures from the Invest in Britain Bureau which show that in the past 10 years about 2,250 overseas investment projects in this country worth £10·75 billion have created or safeguarded nearly 250,000 jobs. That is the foreign vote of confidence in the British economy under the present Administration.
The other matter brought out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was the extent to which this greater industrial wealth that has been created has opened the way for greater expenditure on the environmental issues that are a matter of concern to us all. There is a £1 billion programme for the cleansing of power station emissions and an even larger programme of £1·2 billion over the next four years for improving sewage treatment and disposal. There is a £70 million a year programme for improving the quality of coastal waters and attempts are being made to deal with the problem of vehicle emissions.
My right hon. Friend spoke about other matters such as the international lead that Britain has given in seeking to tackle the problem of chlorofluorocarbons and their damage to our environment. Action is being taken to deal with the acid rain caused by our power stations, and work is going on to curb pollution in the North sea.
A major theme of the Gracious Speech is to carry forward the policies on which this country's industrial and economic resurgence have been based. One important aspect of that is the policy of privatisation which has featured largely in the debate. Against the background of what has been achieved and the way in which it is now being copied throughout the world—

Mr. Thomas Graham: The Minister speaks about privatisation. Is he aware that the Royal Ordnance factory at Bishopton has productivity that is second to none? It is a profit-making firm, and yet the Government are allowing it to be closed.

Mr. Newton: I have spoken to people concerned with one of the Royal Ordnance factories, the one at Patricroft in the north-west rather than the one about which the hon. Gentleman speaks, and I am well aware of the purpose and point of what British Aerospace is seeking to do with the factories. It is seeking to make sure that the work is carried out in a way that safeguards the jobs of the maximum number of people. If the Government that the hon. Member would no doubt have supported had faced that need in a wide range of industries over a longer period, we would not now be facing many of the difficulties wall which we are seeking to deal.
In view of some of the comments in the debate, I must reiterate what my right hon. Friend said about the Water Bill and its importance for the protection of the environment. The proposed creation of the National Rivers Authority, which will be responsible for the health of the rivers, estuaries and coastal waters in England and Wales and which will be guided by statutory river quality standards, is a major step towards improving control of the environment. The public health interest in the supply of drinking water will be met by my right hon. Friend setting statutory requirements and by local authorities' continuing scrutiny of the quality of water supplies.
Some of what has been said in the debate is far fetched in the light of the fact that a quarter of the population of England and Wales already receives its drinking water from the private sector, the statutory water companies. No less significant than our policy of returning much of the public sector of industry to the more competitive framework of the private sector is the range of measures to strengthen competition policy and to enhance the opportunity for encouragement of enterprise at every level. That is reflected by the enterprise initiative and by the huge volume of applications for assisted consultancy that we have received. It is reflected in the record figures for the creation of new small businesses, and it is reflected by the response throughout industry, both large and small, to the campaign to equip British industry for the challenge of 1992.
Nowhere is the link between the industrial policy and the environment clearer than in some of the less prosperous regions and those which, as a form of shorthand, we call the inner cities. Their problems have starkly shown the consequences of what happens to the environment when there is no secure and expanding industrial base. It follows that nowhere are the benefits of the greater national prosperity that we have created clearer than in those parts of the country which have faced some of the worst difficulties of earlier failures to bring about the necessary industrial change and to get the economy on the move.
I am well aware that the Opposition do not like being told some of the facts about the improvements.[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I repeat that we must give the Chancellor of the Duchy a fair hearing. He has five minutes more.

Mr. Newton: In the past years—[Interruption.]

Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is there any way in which you can stop the Opposition Front Bench from behaving like a charabanc of giggling schoolboys with the Leader of the Opposition as head girl?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already made that point clear.

Mr. Newton: In the past year, the largest falls in the rate of unemployment have been recorded in the west midlands, Wales, the northern region and the north-west. The greater industrial prosperity that has been created is now clearly spreading to all our regions.
The greater confidence of British industry to invest is matched by the greater willingness of people overseas to

invest in the English regions, as was made clear by the recent announcement from Ford of new plant in south Wales with an investment totalling £725 million which will create or safeguard 2,500 jobs.

Mr. Brian Wilson: rose—

Mr. Newton: No, I shall not give way.
That example is matched by what has happened in the past 10 years when nearly 1,300 foreign investment projects, worth more than £7·5 billion, have gone to areas which have received regional selective assistance of more than £700 million. As a result 200,000 jobs have been created or safeguarded.

Mr. Wilson: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Newton: Something that exposes more clearly than anything else the claims that the Opposition have sought to make today is what has happened to spending on capital programmes of key importance to the environment. On roads, spending went down by 40 per cent. under Labour, but it has gone up by 30 per cent. under us. On railways, spending was static under Labour, but it has gone up by 15 per cent. under us. On hospitals, spending went down by nearly a third under Labour, but it has gone up by more than 40 per cent. under us.
When the hon. Member for Dagenham talks of our references being all illusion and no substance, he fails to remember the record of the Labour Government, who were all words and no action. They never put their money where their mouths were because they never had the money to do it.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 237, Noes 348.

Division No. 1]
[10 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Allen, Graham
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Alton, David
Canavan, Dennis


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)


Armstrong, Hilary
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Ashdown, Paddy
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Clay, Bob


Ashton, Joe
Clelland, David


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Cohen, Harry


Barron, Kevin
Coleman, Donald


Battle, John
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Beckett, Margaret
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Beggs, Roy
Corbett, Robin


Beith, A. J.
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bell, Stuart
Cousins, Jim


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cox, Tom


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Crowther, Stan


Bermingham, Gerald
Cryer, Bob


Bidwell, Sydney
Cummings, John


Blair, Tony
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Boateng, Paul
Cunningham, Dr John


Boyes, Roland
Dalyell, Tam


Bradley, Keith
Darling, Alistair


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Dewar, Donald


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Dixon, Don


Buchan, Norman
Dobson, Frank


Buckley, George J.
Doran, Frank


Caborn, Richard
Douglas, Dick


Callaghan, Jim
Duffy, A. E. P.






Dunnachie, Jimmy
McTaggart, Bob


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
McWilliam, John


Eadie, Alexander
Madden, Max


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Marek, Dr John


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Fatchett, Derek
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Faulds, Andrew
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Fearn, Ronald
Martlew, Eric


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Maxton, John


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Meacher, Michael


Fisher, Mark
Meale, Alan


Flannery, Martin
Michael, Alun


Flynn, Paul
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Foster, Derek
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Foulkes, George
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Fraser, John
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Fyfe, Maria
Morgan, Rhodri


Galbraith, Sam
Morley, Elliott


Galloway, George
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Mowlam, Marjorie


George, Bruce
Mullin, Chris


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Murphy, Paul


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Nellist, Dave


Golding, Mrs Llin
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Gordon, Mildred
O'Brien, William


Gould, Bryan
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Graham, Thomas
Paisley, Rev Ian


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Parry, Robert


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Patchett, Terry


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Pendry, Tom


Grocott, Bruce
Pike, Peter L.


Hardy, Peter
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Prescott, John


Heffer, Eric S.
Primarolo, Dawn


Henderson, Doug
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hinchliffe, David
Radice, Giles


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Randall, Stuart


Holland, Stuart
Redmond, Martin


Home Robertson, John
Reid, Dr John


Hood, Jimmy
Richardson, Jo


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Robertson, George


Howells, Geraint
Robinson, Geoffrey


Hoyle, Doug
Rogers, Allan


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Rooker, Jeff


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Rowlands, Ted


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Ruddock, Joan


Illsley, Eric
Sedgemore, Brian


Ingram, Adam
Sheerman, Barry


Janner, Greville
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


John, Brynmor
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Short, Clare


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Sillars, Jim


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Skinner, Dennis


Kennedy, Charles
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Kirkwood, Archy
Soley, Clive


Lamond, James
Spearing, Nigel


Leadbitter, Ted
Steel, Rt Hon David


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Steinberg, Gerry


Lewis, Terry
Stott, Roger


Litherland, Robert
Strang, Gavin


Livsey, Richard
Straw, Jack


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Loyden, Eddie
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


McAllion, John
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


McAvoy, Thomas
Turner, Dennis


McCrea, Rev William
Vaz, Keith


McFall, John
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Wall, Pat


McKelvey, William
Wallace, James


McLeish, Henry
Walley, Joan


Maclennan, Robert
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


McNamara, Kevin
Wareing, Robert N.





Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)
Wray, Jimmy


Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Williams, Rt Hon Alan



Wilson, Brian
Tellers for the Ayes:


Winnick, David
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Wise, Mrs Audrey
Mr. Ken Eastham.


Worthington, Tony

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

European Community (Transport)

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 7325/88 on transport infrastructure and 6047/88 on aids for transport; and endorses the Government's opposition both to the creation of a transport infrastructure spending instrument and to the extension of Regulation (EEC) No. 1107/70 to cover the granting of aids for certain transport operating costs.
We are considering two proposals. The first, document 7325/88, would create a spending programme for transport infrastructure. The Commission would use general criteria to select projects from a generalised list, and would ascribe to its selection funding drawn from the transport infrastructure line of the European budget. The programme would run until the end of 1992.
The Government welcome some aspects. We accept the need to review whether there are gaps or bottlenecks in the Community transport network. We are, however, opposed to the measure as a whole. The Community should not proliferate spending instruments. Transport infrastructure can be and is supported from the Community's existing structural funds—for example, the European regional development fund. Structural funds are being substantially increased up to 1993. Where schemes are not eligible for existing funds, they should be provided at the expense of member states or by private funding.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I am delighted to hear of the Government's opposition to this new extravagance by the EEC, and particularly to the proposed spending on the infrastructure of the Channel tunnel, but will the Minister tell us whether the proposal will be decided by majority vote by the EEC Council of Ministers—in which case the Government's objection can be overruled—or whether there must be unanimity? In other words, are we wasting our time tonight because the matter will be decided by majority vote on the Council?

Mr. Bottomley: It would be decided by majority vote, but I do not believe that we are wasting our time, and I hope that others will take the view that the Government are inviting the House to take. If this is one of the occasions on which my hon. Friend says that he is wasting his time by being here, the House may miss hearing what he has to say later.
It is impossible to assess the financial implications of the proposal as no figures for costs of schemes or allocation of funding by the Commission appear in it. We believe that the Council and not the Commission should have the determining role over financial allocation.
The second document. 6047/88, would prolong to 1992 existing arrangements which empower member states to grant subsidies for infrastructure investment in connection with combined transport operations. It would also allow aids to be granted against operating costs associated with combined transport.
The existing arrangements have been in place since 1982 but member states have made little use of them. Equally little use has been made of the existing combined transport facilities by either the United Kingdom or other states' hauliers.
The Government can accept, without much enthusiasm, the extension of existing powers for subsidies for

infrastructure investment. We are opposed to the extension of the scope to embrace operating costs as well. Although the draft directive refers to the granting of aids "as a temporary measure," the word "temporary" is not defined. The proposal could open a loophole for the continuing payment of operating cost subsidies by some member states.
Subsidies distort competition. Freight transport should operate on a commercial basis. If these types of operation or their infrastructure are in demand, there should be no problem about providing appropriate facilities on a commercial basis. The Government are opposed to both measures. The House should endorse the motion.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: If we had an excellent road system that enabled private vehicles and commercial freight to travel on it, the Minister's comments might have had some substance. Similarly, if we had a rail system by which freight and passenger transport could travel with ease throughout the country, the Minister's remarks might have been relevant. The reality is that we have one of the worst road and rail systems in western Europe.
The Minister referred to Britain being able to compete on equal terms, but he is some years out of date. He said that there was no room for subsidy in the allocation of freight costs, but I must point out to him that for many years West Germany heavily subsidised new freight handling facilities. Similarly, if the Minister looks at what is happening in France, he will see that the French have been happy to take advantage of the money that has been made available by the European Community. That is the reason why Britain lags so far behind West Germany and France in its ability to carry passengers and freight.
I do not disagree with all that the Minister said. The Opposition are adamant that matters of this kind should not be decided by the Commission. I represent: a constituency in the north-east. A quick glance at the Commission's proposals shows that the Commission has no idea that part of this nation lies outside the south-east. The Commission's action programme is confined exclusively to activities in the south-east—to London and the Channel tunnel. People who live elsewhere in the country object to proposals of that kind.

Mr. Roger Moate: I think I heard the hon. Gentleman say that he does not oppose all that my hon. Friend the Minister said. So that we can make sense of his remarks, will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether he is for or against the motion?

Mr. Lloyd: There are two documents before the House. The Government, with a degree of sleight of hand, have confused the two and put them together, so it is import ant to spell out the Opposition's disagreement and agreement. If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, that agreement and disagreement will become apparent.
It is unacceptable that the Commission should decide the priorities that are applicable to this country. The Minister regaled the House with his Euro anger. He said that it would be unacceptable to take money for this purpose from the Community. I remind him, however, of the comments of his hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Stewart) in a debate on the European Communities budget in 1984. Money was being allocated by the European Community for the transport


infrastructure. The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) asked his hon. Friend whether these matters ought to be decided by national Governments, and the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North said:
Decisions on road building are for the Government to make, and will remain so. However, I hope that my hon. Friend will welcome, as much as I do, any Community funds that are available to assist with the financing of such roads and to solve the problem of our refunds."—[Official Report, 20 February 1984; Vol. 54, c. 576.]
I must put into context my reason for giving that quotation. Can the Minister respond to the question that was put to him by his hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), who asked about the criteria for majority voting? We know from experience that majority voting means that the British Government have to accept what is imposed by other European Community countries. Will the Minister make it clear in his closing remarks whether he expects Britain to receive support within the Council of Ministers on these matters?

Mr. Peter Bottomley: It always strikes me as better to consider the proposal on its merits first, and then to consider other countries' attitudes. As I understand it, our opposition to the proposal on infrastructure is shared by Germany, France, the Netherlands and Denmark, so we expect that the proposal will not be adopted. We believe that most other countries share our lukewarm attitude to the proposal on combined transport. [Interruption.] It is unclear whether the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) is speaking in opposition to the Government's attitude or is talking to his hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), whom we welcome back to transport. I do not know whether the combined transport proposal will ever be adopted by the Community.

Mr. Lloyd: I want to welcome the Minister back to transport because he does not seem to have discussed transport yet. On the basis of what he has told us, it is unclear whether the Government expect that there will be a qualified majority in favour of the proposal that deals with combined transport initiatives. It is important for the House to know. We know that the Germans, French, Belgians, Danes and Dutch have all adopted similar infrastructure schemes and have received money from the European Community. The Minister has expressed some surprise about that, so I suggest that he reads the documentation that has been made available by the Vote Office. It gives precise details about the nations that have received support for such schemes in the past.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I am not sure whether I am helping or hindering by intervening occasionally. On page 6 of the letter of 6 May 1988 from the Commission, it says, "Germany: no aids granted."

Mr. Lloyd: I have had the advantage of reading the whole document, which the Minister has not. If he reads a little further he will see it spelt out comprehensively that the reason the Germans did not receive aid under that heading was that they received aid under a different heading. If the Minister wants to debate the issue seriously, will he read the documents before coming to the House? It is important to argue on the basis of facts, rather than play a silly Oxford Union debating game—in which

I have no ambition to take part. The Germans have received money from the Community over many years for such activities. The Germans no longer require that money because they have finished their programme of investment in aids to combined transport schemes and have a system that operates in the way in which ours should.
I am pleased that the Minister for Public Transport is with us this evening. Outside the south-east there is considerable concern about the Channel tunnel and about the capacity of the regions to have an adequate investment in the road and rail freight facilities that most people in the transport industry accept are needed in order to maximise the benefits of the rail system through the tunnel into Europe. The European Community scheme that we are discussing would at least have the merit of making money available for such schemes.
I stress again that those schemes are far better carried out when the priorities are established by national Governments. However, this Government want the worst of both worlds. They want to deny the European Community the ability to finance the schemes, yet they want to turn their back on regions such as my own in the north-west, Yorkshire, Humberside and Scotland. They say that unless the private sector is prepared to provide the finance it will not be available. The Government have made it clear—and the Minister has reiterated the point—that freight transport must operate on a commercial basis, without subsidies. Can the Minister tell us why Britain alone in western Europe takes that view?
The Minister says that the Government believe that private funds will be available to meet infrastructure demands. Can he tell us why other countries have invested in schemes to ensure that they allow for development of the freight industry based on an integrated approach? Such development does not take place overnight.
Does the Minister seriously believe that the market system has been able to allocate costs acceptably when he knows that schemes are being put forward throughout the country in terms, for example, of consultations with British Rail, under section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987, which, when it comes to the crunch, the Government will refuse to finance, on narrow financial grounds, taking no account whatsoever of the regional and social costs that will be imposed by such a refusal? Such subsidies are needed in the context of the Channel tunnel. Such subsidies have been recognised by the French in their investments in north-eastern France, and by the West Germans in their investments between 1980 and 1985. I accept that the Minister did not know about that investment, but if he reads the document it will become apparent to him that the West Germans made that kind of investment. Is the Minister aware that we in Britain are the ones who are out of step in terms of such investment?
We shall vote against the Government precisely because of their dog-in-the-manger attitude to that kind of investment. We shall vote against the motion, which congratulates the Government on their pig-headed, obstinate and ostrich-like stance in not being prepared to accept the benefits of such investment in freight handling schemes. If the Minister will say that the Government have had a change of view, if instead of saying that freight should operate only on a commercial basis and without subsidy, if he will stand at the Dispatch Box and say that he has reviewed the situation and recognises the crassness and foolishness of the Government's position and the unfairness of its impact on regions outside the south-east,


and if the Minister, who represents a south-eastern seat and a south-eastern Government, is prepared to say that at last the Government recognise that they have got it wrong in terms of a freight structure for the rest of the nation, Opposition Members will be prepared to reconsider their decision on which way to vote. However, we know that the Minister will not do that. We know that the Government are locked into the market forces game.
Even at Question Time today, the Minister said that the public were often unaware of the causes of the holdups on our motorways. He waxed eloquent about the tragedies of the accidents on our motorways. Is he aware that our motorway system is often clogged up, not because of accidents, but because of incompetence in his Department, in the repair programme for which it has been responsible for 10 years, and because of its failure to invest in a decent roads programme over those years? That is why we cannot afford to turn our backs on the concept of combined transportation schemes or on the idea of an integrated road-rail system. Until the Minister frees the motorway system, the Opposition will have to take the Government to task for their inability to invest in the future.
Therefore, I challenge the Minister. If he is prepared to accept that market forces are not delivering the goods, have not delivered the goods, and will not deliver the goods in the future, we shall reconsider the way in which we shall vote tonight. However, in the absence of that kind of commitment, I advise the Minister that we shall vote against the Government and their pig-headed stance because we are determined to see properly funded public and private transport industries operating in conjunction with each other, in the interests of the whole nation.

Mr. James Hill: The two documents that we are considering are clearly separate. One deals with subsidies for infrastructure and the other with aids for transport. We should separate the two in our minds, although the Opposition have not quite done so. The infrastructure problem has been there ever since we joined the Community in 1973. If we do not consider it carefully, it could be as big a financial disaster as the common agricultural policy.
I have not heard the peripheral regions of Europe mentioned, but those are the areas where there is great need for infrastructure. When I was a Member of the European Parliament we drew up a document dealing with the bridges and tunnels of Europe. Achieving a mere tenth of its proposals would involve the most enormous budget. Infrastructures are most needed in places such as Sicily in southern Italy and Greece. Portugal is another. Their infrastructure cannot possibly be compared to ours.
If the Government support the proposal, they must be prepared to make considerable injections of money, to pay for infrastructure, decided at the whim of the Commissioners, who represent countries where the infrastructure is poor. If we are to have a Messina bridge and all the tunnels that are needed throughout the Community. we are talking about billions of ecu. We cannot write a blank cheque for infrastructure.
Transport, whether by road, rail or air, is essential in the modern Community, but once again the costs are horrendous. If we are to subsidise everyone who applies to Brussels for an aviation link or help with a transport project, a blank cheque will be required. It is possible to

think European by thinking like a Sicilian, Italian or Greek. That is what they want. It is why they joined. They want the wealthier countries to support their infrastructure. Ports, airports and motorways enable them to get their goods to the heart of the Community market. They are vital to them, but they are not quite so vital to us.
We have immense trouble with the common agricultural policy, but we might have a burden which is almost sufficient to break the Community budget's back. That is not what the Commissioners want. They mention the fact, as a sop to us, that there is the European Investment Bank, but it was around when Anthony Crosland was Secretary of State for Transport. It was prepared to hand over 200 million ecu to start off the Channel tunnel. Now, that sum would not build the first two or three miles.
The Opposition are opposing for the wrong reasons. They must ask themselves whether they want the United Kingdom, France and Germany to bear another heavy burden. The proposals would represent a colossal burden for countries with good infrastructure. My hon. Friend the Minister is right. Moves forward must be hesitant, careful and silent because, at the slightest sign of our being ready to agree to this enormous budget, we will land the wealthier nations with a colossal bill.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) has just treated us to an extraordinary speech, and one which I did not expect to hear. He said, with enormous complacency, that all the problems are abroad. One wonders whether he has ever driven on one of our motorways or seen passengers in second-class InterCity carriages sitting on the floor because there are not enough seats.
The hon. Gentleman's view is extraordinary, especially to people in my part of the country, which many people regard as a peripheral area of the European Community. It has suffered from lack of investment and it suffers from lack of infrastructure as a result of the policies of a Government who are not prepared to invest.
I welcome the EEC initiative to extend the period during which member states are allowed to give aid to develop good transport infrastructure because we need it. I regret that while the Government welcome the aim of developing a Community-wide transport policy they have not seen fit to seize the opportunity for the benefit of this country's infrastructure. Moreover, if the hon. Gentleman is to be believed, they do not even see the need to seize the opportunity.
I have argued that we need an integrated transport strategy for Britain. As our roads clog up, the Government's policies stall. Their attitude could not be better summed up than in the letter of 2 September 1986 in which the Government
informed the Commission services that no aids arc granted to promote combined Transport in the United Kingdom.
Just what we have always said. That is the Government's position. They spell it out for us. That lack of action is typical of a Government who are all too willing to shed large crocodile tears over the transport difficulties of ordinary men and women as they attempt to travel without providing the necessary financial handkerchief to mop up the resulting puddle. The attitude is typified by the lack of any major transport legislation this Session, despite the growing public concern about the huge traffic jams on our


roads, an M25 which has been stalled from the day it was opened, crowded airways and a public transport network so overcrowded in some areas that it presents a threat to safety.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: What sort of legislation does the hon. Gentleman have in mind? Is he proposing that we should get rid of the statutory processes? He talked about the M25 being stalled from the day it was opened. Is he aware that vehicles travel 6,000 million kms a year on it?

Mr. Alan Meale: Very slowly.

Mr. Taylor: Yes, very slowly. That reminds me of the advertisement for the Vauxhall Nova where a car drives on the roofs of others. Perhaps that will be the solution.
The crocodile tears for transport bear a striking resemblance to the equally large tears that the Government shed over the environment and their failure to introduce legislation to improve the position. The two issues are connected because part of what the EC presents through these documents is precisely the means to tackle many of the environmental problems that people face in their everyday lives.
As the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) said, our European partners, notably France, West Germany, Belgium and Denmark, have seized the ability to grant aid to develop their infrastructure. In particular, they have improved terminals to facilitate rail freight. It is a shame that the British Government have to be dragged kicking and screaming to make the kind of investment that our people cry out for.
The Government claim that
freight transport should operate on a commercial basis without subsidy.
Freight already receives a subsidy as road building is undertaken by taxpayers. Only this month the Department of Transport announced that more than £4 billion will be spent on main roads over the next three years. I have got that wrong: the Government "invest" in road building and "subsidise" railways. What a difference in attitude.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Talk about the Community."] I am talking about the Government's attitude to the motion on these EC documents and the opportunities that they present.
The Government claim that if there were sufficient demand
private funds would be available to meet infrastructure costs.
Would those funds be sufficient to meet the other costs associated with road usage? In Spain, which is often cited as a private road paradise, the accident rate on parallel public roads has increased enormously and Spanish transport officials admit that the scheme is "utterly disastrous". Is that the kind of paradise that the Minister envisages for us or does he hope to eliminate accidents altogether by binding up the road system so much that nothing is moving and nobody is in any danger of being run over?
The Government seem to imply that only direct financial implications are important, but surely a wider perspective is called for and Europe offers us that. This so-called Green Government, as chief defenders of environmental protection, must surely be aware of the environmental hazards of heavy lorries with their noise

pollution, and the destruction of areas of special scientific interest as a result of road building. The Government, as so-called chief defenders of the National Health Service, must surely be aware of the £2·8 billion spent by it in 1985 as a result of road accidents. I know that the Minister is aware of that as I have heard him talk about it. That is the cost of too many wasteful, tragic experiences for too many families in Britain and it could be avoided. The Government, as so-called chief defenders of the economy—no doubt we shall hear more about thattomorrow—must surely be aware of the estimate by John Banham, the director-general of the CBI, that £5 billion is being poured down the drain in congestion costs.
The EC legislation, 1992 and the opening of the Channel tunnel provide a unique opportunity to integrate and streamline our transport operation with the rest of Europe.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Does the hon. Gentleman want to integrate Common Market heavy lorry standards by increasing the size of our juggernauts to 44 tonnes and allowing bigger, more intrusive lorries on our roads, or does he favour only a partial integration excluding juggernauts?

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the context in which I used the word "integration". I am talking about integration of transport in terms of road, rail and air. Taking vehicles off the roads would tackle precisely the difficulties that the hon. Gentleman raises. I am sure that he would welcome such a policy.
Combined transport, particularly where it reduces congestion, increases road safety, conserves energy and allows better use of existing rail capacity, is an opportunity provided by the documents that we are debating. People in many areas throughout the country are concerned that the benefits that the Channel tunnel can bring will be felt only in the south-east where many people fear the prospect of too much growth and too much congestion. The Government plan to construct a link that will certainly leave out areas such as my constituency. Without electrification through Exeter, Plymouth and Penzance, Britain's premier tourist area will be cut off from one of Britain's premier tourist routes.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Looking at article 3 on page 4, I do not see any of the European Communities generalised list coming anywhere near the premier tourist resorts of England. Perhaps we are talking about different proposals.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Just to stick the boot in twice, my point is very much the same. I hope that the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) will join me at least in criticising the Commission whose view of Britain encompasses the land that lies between Dover and London. There is no mention whatsoever of any investment outside the south-east. The hon. Gentleman and I are on similar ground in that we want investment into what the Government regard as peripheral areas. I live in such an area and I know that they are not peripheral but the Commission mentions nothing about that.

Mr. Taylor: I am not suggesting that the Commission is adequate, but it is moving in the right direction. The Government's response is to write out any concept of integrated strategy for public transport which is the first prerequisite for tackling the problems that we agree exist.
It is simply not enough for the Government to encourage private finance and abdicate responsibility for the rest of the infrastructure. That is the option that the Government put forward. They say that private sector finance is fine, but what the public sector could do to solve the problems is written out of the agenda altogether.
The EC initiative concerns an integrated transport strategy. It recognises the role of the public sector in providing safe, reliable, cheap and efficient transport. It points to the environmental advantages of such a strategy. Because of those things, it comes as no surprise that the Government have proposed the motion to reject them. I hope that the House will not follow that example and will oppose the motion as a short-sighted, mean-spirited response to the opportunity that Europe's attitude to transport begins to present.

Mr. Roger Moate: I hope that the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) will forgive me if I do not follow his argument. I do not feel that anything he said had any relevance to the documents before the House and I suspect that the series of disjointed cliches that he offered to the House owed more to an overpaid research assistant than to any relevance to the debate.
I should like to direct my remarks to the important major proposal by the European Commission for a major new fund for infrastructure investment throughout the European Community. The fact that no price has been put on it is alarming considering the past experience of the Community. An unlimited fund is proposed to spend on projects that the European Community deems to be in the interests of the Community as a whole.
It is strange that the proposal is being opposed by the Government—an opposition I warmly support—yet the Labour party, which is usually in opposition to the Community, is supporting an open-ended commitment to spending without limit. Whatever tortuous arguments the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) may advance, the fact remains that he and his colleagues are supporting a major Euro-project which involves itself in the United Kingdom's spending plans. It offers a blank cheque to the Community to increase spending throughout.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman obviously was not listening. I made it clear that because of the incompetence of the infrastructure programme and its unacceptability to most of the nation, certainly those outside the south-east, we could not support the infrastructure scheme. However, I pointed out that there are two documents under consideration.

Mr. Moate: Therefore, the hon. Gentleman will support the Government on the infrastructure proposal.—[Interruption.] I am sorry to pursue the point but I want to be clear that the Opposition will not oppose us in the Lobby tonight.

Mr. Lloyd: We will.

Mr. Moate: At last we have clarification. I am delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman will not vote against the Government.

Mr. Lloyd: We will vote against the Government.

Mr. Moate: This is very difficult. The Opposition will vote against the Government in support of Community

spending even though they are against it. That is wonderful. The position is clear if one can have clarity from such a dense fog.
In fact, things are even more ironic. I must now cause a little less pleasure on the Government Front Bench. Whatever the House does will have little relevance. My hon. Friend the Minister was sanguine about the prospects of defeating the proposal in the Council of Ministers. I have heard suggestions that we will lose in the Council of Ministers and that there could be a majority in favour of the new infrastructure fund. I hope that I am wrong and that my hon. Friend is right, but neither of us knows. It could be that the House, led by the Government, will defeat the proposal. I am not sure whether the Opposition are for or against the measure but they intend to vote against it and could well win the day because it may be passed in the Community. Therefore, whether we like it or not, we might have forced upon us the new infrastructure fund for investing in major British transport projects.

Mr. Lloyd: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would care to remind hon. Members which side of the House voted in favour of the qualified majority system of voting in the Community.

Mr. Moate: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that he and I would be in total agreement that we should never have a majority voting factor in constitutional arrangements. However, he is not making it any easier for us by supporting the proposal against the Government. If he is against the proposal, why does he not add his voice by saying that he supports the Government's position?

Mr. Peter Bottomley: It might make all the difference.

Mr. Moate: Yes, and perhaps we can persuade Opposition Members to join us tonight in voting down this proposal.
Of course, none of us is satisfied with the current rail and road systems in this country, least of all, I suspect, my hon. Friend the Minister. We acknowledge that there is a vast amount to be done and we are all striving to do more. The answer does not lie in securing a small handout for projects that probably will not rate high in our priorities.
Leaving aside arguments about the theology of the European Community, surely any prosperous nation such as ours, the Germans and the French, should not look to the European Community to determine the quality of our roads or when and where we should find the investment and resources to develop our road and rail systems. If we were discussing a Third world country, a poor nation or an aid programme, the proposal might be logical, but we are not. Any argument about whether more funds should be directed to motorways or how those funds should be raised is one for the United Kingdom. We do not need the European Community to tell us how we should order our priorities. All that has nothing to do with whether one passionately believes in the European Community. The road programmes of the member states should be determined by their Governments.
The arguments across the House or with Ministers about whose roads should be highest in the order or priorities are for us to determine. Having sorted out our priorities, it would be a nonsense if the Community came along with our money, not the Community's, and said that another project should receive priority. That would he


fundamentally wrong. The Government are right to oppose that concept, and I hope that they will carry the day.
If the proposal goes through, who knows where it will end? There is no limit on expenditure. Where does that leave a Conservative Government or, perish the thought, even a Labour Government in determining priorities for transport spending? I do not believe that Opposition Members, any more than I, want those priorities to be determined elsewhere.

Mr. Hill: Turkey has applied to join the European Community. I wonder what the costs of its infrastructure would be if the Commission wanted to help Turkey.

Mr. Moate: My hon. Friend is emphasising the tremendous danger of passing such a resolution. Indeed, we face danger whatever we do tonight. If the proposal is carried in the Commission by majority vote, we shall face that danger. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will find a solution to that difficult problem.
There is agreement across the House that we object to the fact that it is a Commission-produced proposal. It is extraordinary that a motion opposed by the British Government and, I understand, many other Governments of the member states is before us simply because it has been produced by the Commission. In all the years of debate about the European Community, I have never understood how we came to accept a constitutional arrangement whereby major policy proposals are produced by unelected civil servants. Tonight we have a classic example of how, time and again, matters come before us that are not Community proposals and that have not been produced by democratically elected Governments. Indeed, they have been opposed by many member states. Can we have some sanity in all this? Will my right hon. Friends propose some amendment to this extraordinary constitution so that the Commission stops producing material that only causes major disturbances within the Community?
One project that has any relevance to this country is the link which, presumably, involves the Channel tunnel and London. Here we have a project that the Government are quite clearly stating is to be financed by the private sector. I accept that Opposition Members might have different views about how the Channel tunnel should be financed. Nevertheless, the House of Commons and the country are determined that, if there is to be a Channel tunnel, it is to be financed by the private sector. But here we have a proposal that suggests that the European Commission would use British funds—funds that would come from this country—in one way or another to subsidise the privately financed Channel tunnel project. Whichever way we look at it, that makes a nonsense of that proposal.
Conservative Members surely cannot accept that there will be a breach of the fundamental promise that it will not involve public funds. This proposal would involve public funds. If it is to be a privately financed, private risk project, how on earth can Opposition Members accept that there will be a subsidy from public funds to bail out private investors? In terms, it is nonsense, and I cannot see how they can accept it.

Mr. John Prescott: The hon. Gentleman does not appear to be aware that, even

under the present proposals—quite apart from the proposal for the new transport fund, which we oppose also—there can be a claim by the Government for infrastructure expenditure as assistance in the Channel tunnel development, and the Government are actually claiming it. The money that is given by Britain to the Community, even under the old system, will be used to subsidise some of the investment in the Channel tunnel.

Mr. Moate: Again, the hon. Gentleman said that he is opposed to the infrastructure fund, but I remind him that he will vote in favour of it tonight.

Mr. Prescott: No.

Mr. Moate: Then Opposition Members must not vote against the Government in the Lobbies tonight.

Mr. Prescott: There are two documents.

Mr. Moate: I know, but there is to be one vote.
I return to the fundamental point that, according to the treaty and every promise that has been made to the country and to the House, public sector funds will not be involved in the Channel tunnel project. The measure is in direct conflict with that, and, therefore, I cannot see how on earth the House can approve it. On all counts, my hon. Friends have got this matter right tonight. We must strongly opposes the proposals here and in Brussels.

Mr. Harry Ewing: The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) has been having some fun at the expense of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) on how the Opposition will vote at the end of the debate. The hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough and has taken part in a sufficient number of EEC debates to know that the Opposition's problem is that the Government have grouped the two documents in one motion. Therefore, there is no opportunity for any Opposition Member or any other hon. Member to express a separate opinion on either document. If Opposition Members want to vote in favour of one document and against the other document, they have only one opportunity. That may be interpreted by the hon. Gentleman as voting for both documents. I am fairly certain that he accepts that my hon. Friends have made the Opposition's position absolutely clear. We shall vote against the infrastructure document and vote in favour of the integrated transport document. It is as simple as that, and the hon. Gentleman accepts it.
It is unfortunate that Scottish National party Members are not present. I do not intentionally attack them, because I did not give them notice that I would mention them in the debate. Recently there has been some debate in Scotland about Scotland being independent in Europe. It seems that Scottish Nationalist Members are in favour of a Scotland independent in Europe when they are discussing it with Kirsty Wark on "Left, Right and Centre" on BBC Scotland, or with Colin McKay on STV—

Mr. Tom Clarke: And Margo McDonald.

Mr. Ewing: And Margo McDonald, as my hon. Friend said—but not when we debate the issue at five past 11 on a Monday night. This matter is important to Scotland and its economy and in 1992 the transport system will be


absolutely vital to what the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) called a peripheral nation, although he did not mention Scotland.
The Minister made a throw-away remark and I want to make sure that he did not mean what he said. He said that there is no place for a subsidy in transport policy. A subsidy operates in the distant islands of Scotland because there is no way that Orkney and Shetland and the Western Isles—the outer isles of Scotland—could transport goods from or to the mainland without the subsidy that has been paid by successive Governments for many years. I hope that the Minister was not giving a broad hint that the subsidy is to be terminated, because if that happened it would be disastrous for the distant islands of Scotland.
The hon. Member for Faversham put his finger on the central issue of the debate. I share the hon. Gentleman's opposition to proposals which come from an unelected Commission and not from Ministers. If the proposals are carried by a majority vote, what will be the Government's position? Will they say that because they voted against the proposals they will not use the provisions in them? That would certainly put Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom at a serious disadvantage.
We can clearly see from the document dealing with transport policy that since the provisions were introduced the French Government have made extensive use of the provision for transport policy, specially in relation to SNCF and two of its subsidiary companies. As a result of the provisions they have obtained substantial funds to develop not only import and container terminal systems, but what the document calls a piggy-back system linking ports and container terminal systems with other centres throughout France.
If I were in the French Government I would vote against the continuation of these policies because France has finished its programme. That puts France at a distinct advantage, particularly as we approach 1992. That is why the French Government have decided that the veto is no longer necessary. They have got everything that they want from the programmes and may well try to make sure that the rest of Europe does not get what it wants and needs.
The relationship between road haulage and the port industry in Scotland is worrying. About 10 years ago 75 per cent. of the goods that were manufactured in Scotland for export went out from Scottish ports. Now only 20 per cent. of those goods go out from Scottish ports and the reason for that is quite simple. The ship owners, the barons who own the vessels, are paying the road haulage costs. For example, the ship owner pays the road haulage costs for Dewar's whisky going by road from Perth to the non-scheme port at Felixstowe. That is because it is much cheaper for the ship owner to pay the road haulage costs than to pay the steaming costs of the vessel that would go to Grangemouth in my constituency where these goods could be loaded.

Mr. Julian Brazier: Surely the hon. Gentleman has just put forward the most eloquent case for the abolition of the dock labour scheme.

Mr. Ewing: This has absolutely nothing to do with the dock labour scheme. It is obvious that 11.10 pm is a bit late for the hon. Gentleman. If he comes back at 4 pm tomorrow, his thinking may be clearer and we can then have a discussion about the dock labour scheme.
This has everything to do with ship owners wanting to pay the road haulage because it is cheaper. It has nothing to do with exporting the goods from Grangemouth or Felixstowe. It is cheaper to pay the road haulage costs rather than to steam a vessel up to Grangemouth, Leith, Perth or any of the other ports that are at a disadvantage compared to the rest of the United Kingdom ports.
It is obvious that the ship owners will close most, if not all, of the Scottish ports. Once that has happened they will stop paying the road haulage costs and Scottish exports will, once more, be at a serious disadvantage.
If the proposals are carried by a majority in the EEC, the Minister is under an obligation to make the best possible use for them, especially in terms of an integrated Scottish transport system.
I have already referred to the absence of SNP Members for this debate. This issue is crucial to the Scottish economy, and I hope that the Minister will deal with the points I have raised.

Mr. Christopher Gill: I applaud the fact that tonight our Government will resist the creation of another European fund. I sincerely hope that our Government will persuade the other European nations of the importance of getting the benefits from Europe by developing its markets and that those benefits cannot come from the creation of structural funds. The more important thing to do is to create the prosperity for individual nations to build their own roads, airports, ports or whatever.

Mr. Meale: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gill: No.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) made a valuable contribution. He implied that the structural funds are a lottery. All hon. Members know that that is true. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that, as a result of the new fund, a bridge may be built over the straits of Messina.
How will the car manufacturer in Cowley feel when taxpayers' money paid into a European fund means that roads will be built from Catania to Calais to speed the passage of cabbages, when manufactured cars cannot get from Cowley to Southampton port?

Mr. Prescott: Why is that?

Mr. Gill: Because where and how the money in the European fund is spent is a lottery. We should be concerned about that.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gill: No. I have a short and important message to give, and I crave the indulgence of the House to pass it on.
Although hon. Members may argue about it, they know that it is a lottery and there is no guarantee that we will get the projects that we want. The majority of applications for grant-aid in relation to the Channel tunnel have come from regions other than the south-east. Most of the cash allocated by the European Commission—no less than £9 million out of the total of £13 million—has gone to the south-east. That is not what this country wanted. That has occurred as a result of the lottery in Brussels.

Mr. Meale: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gill: No, I shall not give way.
These funds are a roundabout. There is a grand illusion among many politicians and members of the public that some projects in this country could not, and would not, be undertaken were it not for European money. That is a grand illusion, because the money is being taken out of our pockets and remitted to our local tax offices, which send it to the Treasury, which in turn sends it to Brussels, where the big shuffle starts. We all become involved in supporting our local councils and industries in an attempt to regain that money.

Mr. Meale: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gill: I have told the hon. Gentleman that I shall not give way.
Every time that I go home I am reminded of that fact because there, for all to see, is a sign that says, "This project would not have been possible without the European regional development fund." It is appropriate that a roundabout was funded in that project.
I shall end my speech now and give all those hon. Members who have attempted to intervene an opportunity to speak. I applaud most enthusiastically the Government's efforts to resist the creation of another structural fund—more power to their elbow in convincing other nations to do the same.

Mr. Elliot Morley: Two issues appear to be at stake tonight: first, the concept of integrated transport systems; and, secondly, how these measures would be funded and would operate.
There are dangers in an open-ended commitment, but I note that negotiations are still taking place about finance and operation, and the proportion of funding. It is undesirable for the Commissioners rather than democratically elected and accountable representatives to decide those priorities. I find depressing the Government's mean-minded and narrow response to the proposal, and we should strongly oppose their response.
I am concerned that Europe, particularly western Europe, is well in advance of us in terms of infrastructure, investment and intergrated canal, rail and road links. We have such potential in this country. For example, in Yorkshire, the canal network goes right to the industrial heartland and the wharf and rail links, and the barge interchanges, could be developed further, to the advantage of the whole region.
If the proposal is carried in Europe, I wonder whether the Government will be able to capitalise on it and obtain grant-aid for infrastructure. I note that, where the road infrastructure is overused, highly polluted, or presents particular problems, there would be justification for grant support. Roads such as the A1 and the M1, which have reached their design capacity and at certain times of the week are choked and clogged, need to be tackled. There is scope for extending the M11 up the east coast and across the Humber bridge to Teesside to take the pressure off those two roads and to assist the industrial development of that region.
I should also like to see a genuine integrated transport policy under which freight is moved by rail as far as possible and there are rail interchanges and a proper public transport sytem to serve people's needs. The present system is breaking down and degenerating. To suggest that

the free market will solve those problems and invest in such infrastructure is nonsense. Deregulation has led to more route mileage for buses and a decline in the number of passengers carried by them. That is not a good example of the market meeting people's needs. Nor do I see the market making a massive investment in infrastructure.
There are specific problems, such as the Humber bridge. The bridge board is being blackmailed by the Government to urge it to increase its tolls, which are already deterring use of the bridge. That is holding back the economic development of the Humberside region, and that is the result of the free market philosophy. The Government do not understand that a little public investment will do much to encourage industry and development, and that is why I say that they are narrow minded and mean minded. They could have much more imagination. They could decide to have lorry routes with break-bulk depots to keep juggernauts out of small town centres. I saw recently in my town centre a juggernaut making a delivery to a working man's club. The enormous lorry was used to deliver two boxes of crisps.
Why not claim some grant for an investment in depots outside all major urban areas? After all, it may be that lorries will eventually meet EEC standards. We could control them by keeping them to designated lorry routes and requiring them to go to break-bulk centres where their loads would be transferred to smaller, lighter vehicles for final delivery. That system would lead to environmental advantage. It would lead also to the creation of jobs and make Britain a nicer place in which to live.
The Government lack the imagination to improve a degenerating transport system. I say to those who sneer at other countries' systems that Greece, for example, has a better bus service than Lincolnshire. We must deploy a great deal of investment, imagination and foresight to improve our transport system, and that is not forthcoming from the Government.

Mr. William Cash: It is with a sense of relief that I hear that the Government are resisting the proposals that are set out in the Community documents. But will we be out-voted if there is majority voting when the issue arises on 8 or 9 December? If we are out-voted, the money will be made available. I want to know whether it will be made available in the United Kingdom in those circumstances. Nothing could be more ridiculous than to find ourselves with Parliament and the Government in unison in opposing these proposals, only to find that the level playing field that we have been seeking to achieve is undermined because all the money is spent by other member states. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will answer that question.
We are dealing with a regulation, not a directive. It is so open-ended in its characteristics that I am reminded of the common agricultural policy. Questions that go to the heart of the financing of the European Community invariably become tied up with regulations. There is not a sufficient degree of control and they find themselves within the function of the Commission. When that happens, we are opening another Pandora's box.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: We are discussing a proposal that would take away from each of the 12 national Governments the power to decide what to do with money. That is why I suspect that 11 member states, if not 12, will


view it with almost as much disfavour as the House. If by any chance it were to be agreed, I am sure that the British Government would find that their application would be considered. There is no guarantee that we would secure a large proportion of the money that would be available or that much of it would go to the north or south-west of Britain. That is why many of us cannot understand the Opposition's promise to vote against taking note of the documents.

Mr. Cash: I am delighted to hear my hon. Friend make that point. I was also delighted by what was leaked in the papers today to the effect that the M40 will have three lanes. My constituents will be very interested in that.
I am delighted that the Minister and the Government have taken a robust position. They have the British Parliament behind them. If the Opposition decide to divide the House, they will demonstrate only that the British Parliament and the electorate agree, as usual, with the Government.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Having listened to the hon. Members for Faversham (Mr. Moate) and for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), one has to ask which party guillotined the Single European Act through the House. Which party in government is represented on the Community's Council of Ministers? That representation does not come from Opposition Members. The Government agreed that there should be majority decision making by the Council of Ministers. Although this draft regulation may be initiated by the European Commission, it cannot be implemented until it receives the approval of the Council of Ministers, to which the Government subscribe. There can be no get—out on the question of responsibility.
The Government are hell-bent on getting into the single European market to exploit their ideological fantasies, but they say no to every other degree of Europeanisation, to social Europe and to regional aid. It ill-becomes a party which has complied with the common agricultural policy for all these years, a policy which takes up 76 per cent. of the EEC's budget, to turn round now and say no to infrastructure expenditure which might help regions represented by so many Opposition Members and, dare I say it, even some represented by Tory Members.
The hon. Member for Ludlow said that we should feel aggrieved that British taxpayers' money might be spent in Calabria and Sicily. Does he realise how aggrieved the taxpayers on Merseyside and the north-east feel when they find that tax reliefs go mainly to the richer people in the south-east of England? Does he not understand that they are aggrieved when they discover that their money is spent on the Channel tunnel, while no real effort is made to improve the infrastructure in their areas to allow them to reap the full rewards of our participation in the European Community?

Mr. Meale: Mansfield, like many other areas, might apply for assisted area status, but it might not be granted because the Government refuse to change the map. Areas are then told to apply to Europe and to campaign for funds such as those under discussion tonight. Perhaps the Minister should offer guarantees to Nottinghamshire councils which want to open a rail link from Nottingham to Worksop. Will the Minister give them some guidance,

or are they wasting their time going to Europe if the Government, who have already refused help for the region once, refuse it again via the EEC?

Mr. Wareing: My hon. Friend will understand that the Government oppose the setting up of the infrastructure fund for any aid for the regions simply on ideological grounds.
There is one thing for which the Government can always be given credit. They never allow reality to get in the way of ideology. They are not willing to have a public expenditure programme. They say, "Leave it to private funding: leave it to the market." They want the people to be the servants of the market, rather than the other way round.
Nothing is more in need of transport harmony than the port system within the Community. Many European countries regard the ports, not as individual transport undertakings, but as part of their national infrastructure. That is why so many EEC countries subsidise the ports, and even cover the costs of dredging, navigation lighting and many other processes. France subsidises the port of Le Havre through zero VAT rating, and covers 80 per cent. of the capital cost of dredging the port. The subsidies are reflected in the lower port charges that they allow. A recent report from Touche Ross illustrated how advantageous it would be for British ports if they received the same degree of subsidy. According to the report, British port charges would be reduced by some 20 to 25 per cent. Instead, many of our imports and exports are trans-shipped through European ports.
Antwerp has become the third port of the United Kingdom, because 15 per cent. of our goods and 8 per cent. of our exports go through it. The Belgian Government are providing 60 per cent. of the funds—£35 million out of £53 million—for the building of a new container terminal at the port.
The Government are allowing our port authorities to go into the European Community naked in 1992. They are unwilling to compete. The Belgian Government plan expenditure of £1 billion on Zeebrugge over 20 years. Where is our Government's infrastructural policy for this country's ports?
My constituency has a major interest in the development of the port of Liverpool. According to a recent survey by a leading firm of stockbrokers, Rensburg, Liverpool is now one of the most stable and successful port operations in Europe, but it needs a tremendous amount of investment to enable it to become what it should be—a bridge for the future in the Community. It would be possible for the United Kingdom to be an Atlantic-Europe land bridge for trade from the Atlantic, provided that the investment was there.
Hon. Members are blaming the Commission, but, looking down the list of transport developments, we find them only in Greece, Spain, France and Italy. I blame the British Government. Europeans think that the British Government are cool towards Europe and that they want it all their way. After the Prime Minister made that speech in Bruges, could she have expected the Commission to believe that if it made proposals for the development of road links in the north of England—for example, the M57 to link up with Liverpool airport at Speke—the British Government would take them seriously? Her speech was silly and chauvinistic.
Our rail and road networks need to be developed. The Government ought to abandon the ideological cul de sac into which they have led the British people and accept that in a single European market there cannot be majority voting only for the policies in which the British Government believe. Sometimes they will be beaten. I hope that they will be beaten on this issue. That is why I am glad that the Opposition will go into the Division Lobby tonight to vote against the motion.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to catch your eye at this late stage in the debate. I shall be brief. I want to make only one simple point about the transport infrastructure document that relates to the integrated transport market in 1992.
It is important that there should be an integrated transport network in 1992 because of its effect on my constituency. I do not agree with the priorities that are set out in the document, but I understand the underlying concept. The only way in which Holyhead can take off is by the provision of an integrated transport network and an improved roads programme to link the Irish Republic and the United Kingdom with the continent of Europe.
Unemployment in Holyhead amounts to about 18 per cent., yet it is a pivotal gateway for the Irish Republic if it is to enter the European network. The concept is right. Therefore, I shall vote against the Government. If they are not prepared to give us the money to finance the infrastructure when the European Community is, I am bound to support its proposals.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: By leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I place on record the Opposition's condemnation of the Government who have linked two separate documents and who, by doing so, have caused so much confusion in the mind of the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate).
The Opposition oppose the Commission's infrastructure proposals. They will do nothing for the nation. However, we are unable to support the Government's dog-in-the-manger stand on integrated transport development aid. They have crassly turned their back on it. If the Minister is prepared to say that the Government intend to revise their policies, the Opposition will be prepared to revise their stand.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: By leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I say that I would not dream of doing what the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) suggests.
The whole House is looking forward to watching the Labour party, with the exception of the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), going into the Division Lobby because they support giving power to the European Commission, uncontrolled by the Council of Ministers, to use generalised criteria and to pick from a generalised list, most of which will do the United Kingdom no good.
Labour Members spoke about integrated transport, but combined transport is really piggy-back services. Until we have smaller wheels on our trains, we are not likely to benefit much from that. Indeed, the Germans have said that they will no longer use it. [Interruption.] I should like to say how much we welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Stretford is still talking because we get a lot of interference from his hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott).
We also welcome the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor), who spoke on behalf of the Social and Liberal Democratic party.
It is worth reading the report of the Scrutiny Committee which recommended that the two proposals should be taken together. When we put forward the explanatory memorandum in July—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Stretford appears to be saying that he has read the Scrutiny Committee's report, but that fact did not emerge from his speech. In the four months since I signed the explanatory memorandum on behalf of the Government, and since it came to the House in July, I do not think that I have received a single representation against it from the Labour party. I certainly have not received any such representations from the Social and Liberal Democratic party.
I advise the hon. Member for West Derby that, if he is to have any consistency, he must follow his line of argument and join the Government in the Division Lobby in voting against the proposal that the European Commission should have an unfettered power. If he votes with the Labour party, we shall not take his speeches seriously in future.
That is very different from the clear and straightforward speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate). As I said earlier, like him we welcome seeing what gaps and bottlenecks remain, but we do not need the European Community to take our money and spend it either on things that we do not regard as priorities or in areas that are not regarded as priorities by national Governments.

Mr. Wareing: rose—

Mr. Bottomley: I shall not give way.
We shall see a great deal of unanimity—I hope that there will be near unanimity—among other countries. When the Council of Ministers meets and has to decide whether it will combine and give up its powers to the Commission, I am sure that most of them will say, "Not on your life." We should say the same in other areas, for example, when people talk about social space, because the biggest social space is self-determination, where possible. Even the national Governments who voted for the Single European Act do not want to give up their determined powers to vagueness, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) rightly pointed out.
Conservative Members are keen on infrastructure spending, which is beginning to grow. The hon. Member for Stretford does not think that we are building enough roads but most of them are being built in the Manchester and Stretford areas. If we go back to the days of the last Labour Government—

Mr. Prescott: There cannot have been many new roads if they are all in Manchester.

Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Member cannot keep his mouth shut for long. In fact, many hon. Members may remember the hon. Gentleman's new year resolution several years ago when he said that he would try not to shout so much. He was not very good at keeping his resolution that year, and he is not very good at it now.
The hon. Member for Truro, speaking on behalf of the Social and Liberal Democratic party, got himself in a slight muddle, and it is probably best to leave it at that—

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: indicated dissent.

Mr. Bottomley: It is no good the leader of the SDLP shaking his head because either he wrote the speech, in which case he knows what his hon. Friend said, or since he was not here and did not listen to it, he cannot know. Perhaps we could see his photogenic leadership take a form other than the hon. Gentleman nodding his head as if in support of what his hon. Friend said, because he did not say very much that was worthwhile.
The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) spoke about subsidies. No one wants to get rid of all subsidies. The reason for identifying subsidies is to see what is being paid for what instead of having generalised subsidies, which is, in effect, what Labour Members are asking us to support when they say that they will vote against the motion. The Government will be able to point to the Labour party's actions for many months and years to come. Opposition Members will regret their decisions of today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) talked about developing the markets of Europe. His was a good speech, and it was the right thing to say. That line should be followed by many more people. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) raised a specific point which I hope that I was able to answer satisfactorily.
The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) did not say much of relevance.
The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) was right to talk of the need to get the ports working properly. One reason why we think that the Government and certainly the European Commission should move away from deciding which ports is that the ports must build their futures on their own competitive advantages, most of which come from within themselves.
The hon. Member for West Derby talked about subsidies. Although many of us are delighted that the port of Liverpool is doing better, we should remember that £165 million of taxpayers' money has gone into Liverpool in the past 10 years. I do not think that many of us would like the Commission to do that in other areas for very long, for any form of transport.
I ask the House, including the Labour party, to support the motion and to reject the idea of giving up all power to the Commission.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 218, Noes 144.

Division No. 1]
[10 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Allen, Graham
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Alton, David
Canavan, Dennis


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)


Armstrong, Hilary
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Ashdown, Paddy
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Clay, Bob


Ashton, Joe
Clelland, David


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Cohen, Harry


Barron, Kevin
Coleman, Donald


Battle, John
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Beckett, Margaret
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Beggs, Roy
Corbett, Robin


Beith, A. J.
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bell, Stuart
Cousins, Jim


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cox, Tom


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Crowther, Stan


Bermingham, Gerald
Cryer, Bob


Bidwell, Sydney
Cummings, John


Blair, Tony
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Boateng, Paul
Cunningham, Dr John


Boyes, Roland
Dalyell, Tam


Bradley, Keith
Darling, Alistair


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Dewar, Donald


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Dixon, Don


Buchan, Norman
Dobson, Frank


Buckley, George J.
Doran, Frank


Caborn, Richard
Douglas, Dick


Callaghan, Jim
Duffy, A. E. P.






Dunnachie, Jimmy
McTaggart, Bob


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
McWilliam, John


Eadie, Alexander
Madden, Max


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Marek, Dr John


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Fatchett, Derek
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Faulds, Andrew
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Fearn, Ronald
Martlew, Eric


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Maxton, John


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Meacher, Michael


Fisher, Mark
Meale, Alan


Flannery, Martin
Michael, Alun


Flynn, Paul
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Foster, Derek
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Foulkes, George
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Fraser, John
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Fyfe, Maria
Morgan, Rhodri


Galbraith, Sam
Morley, Elliott


Galloway, George
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Mowlam, Marjorie


George, Bruce
Mullin, Chris


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Murphy, Paul


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Nellist, Dave


Golding, Mrs Llin
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Gordon, Mildred
O'Brien, William


Gould, Bryan
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Graham, Thomas
Paisley, Rev Ian


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Parry, Robert


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Patchett, Terry


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Pendry, Tom


Grocott, Bruce
Pike, Peter L.


Hardy, Peter
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Prescott, John


Heffer, Eric S.
Primarolo, Dawn


Henderson, Doug
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hinchliffe, David
Radice, Giles


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Randall, Stuart


Holland, Stuart
Redmond, Martin


Home Robertson, John
Reid, Dr John


Hood, Jimmy
Richardson, Jo


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Robertson, George


Howells, Geraint
Robinson, Geoffrey


Hoyle, Doug
Rogers, Allan


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Rooker, Jeff


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Rowlands, Ted


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Ruddock, Joan


Illsley, Eric
Sedgemore, Brian


Ingram, Adam
Sheerman, Barry


Janner, Greville
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


John, Brynmor
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Short, Clare


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Sillars, Jim


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Skinner, Dennis


Kennedy, Charles
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Kirkwood, Archy
Soley, Clive


Lamond, James
Spearing, Nigel


Leadbitter, Ted
Steel, Rt Hon David


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Steinberg, Gerry


Lewis, Terry
Stott, Roger


Litherland, Robert
Strang, Gavin


Livsey, Richard
Straw, Jack


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Loyden, Eddie
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


McAllion, John
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


McAvoy, Thomas
Turner, Dennis


McCrea, Rev William
Vaz, Keith


McFall, John
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Wall, Pat


McKelvey, William
Wallace, James


McLeish, Henry
Walley, Joan


Maclennan, Robert
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


McNamara, Kevin
Wareing, Robert N.





Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)
Wray, Jimmy


Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Williams, Rt Hon Alan



Wilson, Brian
Tellers for the Ayes:


Winnick, David
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Wise, Mrs Audrey
Mr. Ken Eastham.


Worthington, Tony





NOES


Adley, Robert
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Aitken, Jonathan
Curry, David


Alexander, Richard
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Allason, Rupert
Day, Stephen


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Devlin, Tim


Amess, David
Dickens, Geoffrey


Amos, Alan
Dicks, Terry


Arbuthnot, James
Dorrell, Stephen


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Dover, Den


Ashby, David
Dunn, Bob


Aspinwall, Jack
Durant, Tony


Atkins, Robert
Dykes, Hugh


Atkinson, David
Eggar, Tim


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Emery, Sir Peter


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Baldry, Tony
Evennett, David


Batiste, Spencer
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fallon, Michael


Bellingham, Henry
Favell, Tony


Bendall, Vivian
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Benyon, W.
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fishburn, John Dudley


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Fookes, Miss Janet


Body, Sir Richard
Forman, Nigel


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Forth, Eric


Boswell, Tim
Fox, Sir Marcus


Bottomley, Peter
Franks, Cecil


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Freeman, Roger


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
French, Douglas


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Fry, Peter


Bowis, John
Gale, Roger


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Gardiner, George


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Gill, Christopher


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Brazier, Julian
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bright, Graham
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Goodlad, Alastair


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Browne, John (Winchester)
Gorst, John


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Gow, Ian


Buck, Sir Antony
Gower, Sir Raymond


Budgen, Nicholas
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Burns, Simon
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Burt, Alistair
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Butcher, John
Gregory, Conal


Butler, Chris
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Grist, Ian


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Ground, Patrick


Carrington, Matthew
Grylls, Michael


Carttiss, Michael
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Cash, William
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Chapman, Sydney
Hampson, Dr Keith


Chope, Christopher
Hanley, Jeremy


Churchill, Mr
Hannam, John


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Harris, David


Colvin, Michael
Haselhurst, Alan


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hayes, Jerry


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Cope, Rt Hon John
Hayward, Robert


Cormack, Patrick
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Couchman, James
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Cran, James
Heddle, John


Critchley, Julian
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael






Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Maclean, David


Hill, James
McLoughlin, Patrick


Hind, Kenneth
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Holt, Richard
Madel, David


Hordern, Sir Peter
Major, Rt Hon John


Howard, Michael
Malins, Humfrey


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Mans, Keith


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Maples, John


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Marland, Paul


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Marlow, Tony


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Mates, Michael


Hunter, Andrew
Maude, Hon Francis


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Irvine, Michael
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Irving, Charles
Mellor, David


Jack, Michael
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Jackson, Robert
Miller, Sir Hal


Janman, Tim
Mills, Iain


Jessel, Toby
Miscampbell, Norman


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Moate, Roger


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Monro, Sir Hector


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Key, Robert
Moore, Rt Hon John


Kilfedder, James
Morrison, Sir Charles


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Moss, Malcolm


Kirkhope, Timothy
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Knapman, Roger
Mudd, David


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Neale, Gerrard


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Nelson, Anthony


Knowles, Michael
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Knox, David
Nicholls, Patrick


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Latham, Michael
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Lawrence, Ivan
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Page, Richard


Lee, John (Pendle)
Paice, James


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Patnick, Irvine


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Lightbown, David
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Lilley, Peter
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Pawsey, James


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Lord, Michael
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Porter, David (Waveney)


McCrindle, Robert
Portillo, Michael


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Powell, William (Corby)





Price, Sir David
Summerson, Hugo


Raffan, Keith
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Rathbone, Tim
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Redwood, John
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Renton, Tim
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Rhodes James, Robert
Temple-Morris, Peter


Riddick, Graham
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Thorne, Neil


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Thornton, Malcolm


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Thurnham, Peter


Roe, Mrs Marion
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Rost, Peter
Tracey, Richard


Rowe, Andrew
Tredinnick, David


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Trotter, Neville


Ryder, Richard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Sackville, Hon Tom
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Viggers, Peter


Sayeed, Jonathan
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Scott, Nicholas
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Shaw, David (Dover)
Walden, George


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Waller, Gary


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Walters, Sir Dennis


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Ward, John


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Shersby, Michael
Warren, Kenneth


Sims, Roger
Watts, John


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wells, Bowen


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wheeler, John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Whitney, Ray


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Widdecombe, Ann


Speed, Keith
Wiggin, Jerry


Speller, Tony
Wilkinson, John


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Wilshire, David


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Squire, Robin
Winterton, Nicholas


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wolfson, Mark


Stanley, Rt Hon John
Wood, Timothy


Steen, Anthony
Woodcock, Mike


Stern, Michael
Yeo, Tim


Stevens, Lewis
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)



Stokes, Sir John
Tellers for the Noes:


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and


Sumberg, David
Mr. Michael Neubert.

Division No. 2]
[11.44 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)


Alexander, Richard
Ashby, David


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Aspinwall, Jack


Allason, Rupert
Atkins, Robert


Amess, David
Atkinson, David


Amos, Alan
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)


Arbuthnot, James
Baldry, Tony


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Batiste, Spencer





Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Haselhurst, Alan


Bellingham, Henry
Hayes, Jerry


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Benyon, W.
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hill, James


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Hind, Kenneth


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Boswell, Tim
Holt, Richard


Bottomley, Peter
Hordern, Sir Peter


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Howard, Michael


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Bowis, John
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Brazier, Julian
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Bright, Graham
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hunter, Andrew


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Irvine, Michael


Buck, Sir Antony
Jack, Michael


Burt, Alistair
Jackson, Robert


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Janman, Tim


Carrington, Matthew
Jessel, Toby


Carttiss, Michael
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Cash, William
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Chope, Christopher
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Key, Robert


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Cope, Rt Hon John
Kirkhope, Timothy


Couchman, James
Knapman, Roger


Cran, James
Latham, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Lee, John (Pendle)


Curry, David
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Lightbown, David


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Maclean, David


Day, Stephen
McLoughlin, Patrick


Devlin, Tim
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Miller, Sir Hal


Dover, Den
Mills, Iain


Dunn, Bob
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Durant, Tony
Moate, Roger


Dykes, Hugh
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Eggar, Tim
Morrison, Sir Charles


Evennett, David
Moss, Malcolm


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Favell, Tony
Neale, Gerrard


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Neubert, Michael


Fishburn, John Dudley
Nicholls, Patrick


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Forth, Eric
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Franks, Cecil
Page, Richard


Freeman, Roger
Paice, James


French, Douglas
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Gale, Roger
Pawsey, James


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Gill, Christopher
Porter, David (Waveney)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Portillo, Michael


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Powell, William (Corby)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Price, Sir David


Gorst, John
Raffan, Keith


Gow, Ian
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Gower, Sir Raymond
Rathbone, Tim


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Redwood, John


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Renton, Tim


Gregory, Conal
Rhodes James, Robert


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Riddick, Graham


Grist, Ian
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Ground, Patrick
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Grylls, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Rost, Peter


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Rowe, Andrew


Hanley, Jeremy
Ryder, Richard


Hannam, John
Sackville, Hon Tom


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Harris, David
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')






Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Tredinnick, David


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Trotter, Neville


Sims, Roger
Twinn, Dr Ian


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Walden, George


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Waller, Gary


Speed, Keith
Ward, John


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Warren, Kenneth


Steen, Anthony
Wheeler, John


Stern, Michael
Whitney, Ray


Stevens, Lewis
Widdecombe, Ann


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Wiggin, Jerry


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Wilkinson, John


Sumberg, David
Wood, Timothy


Summerson, Hugo
Woodcock, Mike


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Temple-Morris, Peter



Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thornton, Malcolm
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory


Thurnham, Peter
and Mr. Michael Fallon.




NOES


Allen, Graham
Golding, Mrs Llin


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Gordon, Mildred


Armstrong, Hilary
Graham, Thomas


Ashdown, Paddy
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Ashton, Joe
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Hardy, Peter


Battle, John
Henderson, Doug


Beggs, Roy
Hinchliffe, David


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Home Robertson, John


Bermingham, Gerald
Hood, Jimmy


Bradley, Keith
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Howells, Geraint


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Illsley, Eric


Buchan, Norman
Ingram, Adam


Buckley, George J.
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Caborn, Richard
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Callaghan, Jim
Kirkwood, Archy


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Lamond, James


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Leadbitter, Ted


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Lewis, Terry


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Litherland, Robert


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Livsey, Richard


Clay, Bob
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Clelland, David
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Cohen, Harry
McAllion, John


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
McAvoy, Thomas


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
McFall, John


Cousins, Jim
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Cryer, Bob
McKelvey, William


Cummings, John
McLeish, Henry


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McWilliam, John


Cunningham, Dr John
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Dalyell, Tam
Marek, Dr John


Darling, Alistair
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Dewar, Donald
Martlew, Eric


Dixon, Don
Maxton, John


Doran, Frank
Meale, Alan


Duffy, A. E. P.
Michael, Alun


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Eadie, Alexander
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Morgan, Rhodri


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Morley, Elliott


Fatchett, Derek
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Flynn, Paul
Mullin, Chris


Foster, Derek
Murphy, Paul


Foulkes, George
Nellist, Dave


Fyfe, Maria
O'Brien, William


Galbraith, Sam
O'Neill, Martin


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Parry, Robert





Patchett, Terry
Stott, Roger


Pike, Peter L.
Strang, Gavin


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Prescott, John
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Primarolo, Dawn
Turner, Dennis


Quin, Ms Joyce
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Redmond, Martin
Wall, Pat


Reid, Dr John
Wallace, James


Robertson, George
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Rogers, Allan
Wareing, Robert N.


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Ross, William (Londonderry E)
Wilson, Brian


Rowlands, Ted
Winnick, David


Ruddock, Joan
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Sheerman, Barry
Wray, Jimmy


Short, Clare
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Skinner, Dennis



Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Tellers for the Noes:


Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Steinberg, Gerry
Mr. Ken Eastham.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 7325/88 on transport infrastructure and 6047/88 on aids for transport; and endorses the Government's opposition both to the creation of a transport infrastructure spending instrument and to the extension of Regulation (EEC) No. 1107/70 to cover the granting of aids for certain transport operating costs.

WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That during the proceedings on the matter of the effects of the Queen's Speech on the people of Wales, the Welsh Grand Committee have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet, and that, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees), the second such sitting shall not commence before 4 pm nor continue after the Committee have considered the matter for 2 hours at the sitting.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

PETITIONS

Settle-Carlisle Railway

Mr. Eric Martlew: I wish to present a petition from my constituents who are deeply concerned about the possible closure of the Settle-Carlisle line on economic, social and environmental grounds.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that the Settle-Carlisle railway and the associated Blackburn-Hellifield railway will be retained as an integral part of the national railway network.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Mr. David Curry: I wish to present a petition, signed by 10,000 people, concerning the future of the Settle to Carlisle railway.
British Rail has applied to the Secretary of State for leave to close the line and the Government have shown their preference for selling it to the private sector.
The petitioners think that the line should remain part of the British Rail network. The line, notably the magnificent Ribblehead viaduct, lies partly within my constituency. The Government should take to heart the importance of securing the long-term future of the line, which stands alone in Britain in bringing together the magnificence of human engineering and some of the finest landscapes in the United Kingdom.

To lie upon the Table.

Cambridgeshire Structure Plan

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

Sir Anthony Grant: I am very grateful for the opportunity tonight to raise an important matter relating to Cambridgeshire.
We all appreciate the great movement of population which is taking place in our society and which has been happening for some years. Cambridgeshire is the fastest growing county in Britain. We have problems of success. There has been a remarkable growth of industry and commerce, particularly in high technology, in the county, for which we are very grateful and proud, and we have the finest agricultural land in the country. But it is important that, when Ministers are forming environmental policy, they appreciate the effect of all that upon human beings. The Secretary of State must also bear in mind the importance of his decisions on planning. If he makes a mistake the environment can be ruined for ever. For example, the Greater London area and Middlesex suffered as a result of ribbon development between the wars.
My hon. Friend the Minister is always under pressure from amenity groups and residents directly affected but it will not do to say NIMBY—not in my backyard—to justifiably worried house owners and residents. The Minister will also be under possibly stronger and more stealthy pressure from developers and he must be strong enough to resist that. Recently, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has gained a reputation for being the slave of developers and a soft touch when cases go to appeal. That is unfair but he should bear it in mind.
The object of structure plans is to take into account local need, concerns and interests. The Government should give proper weight to local opinion. I shall refer to the Minister's proposed modifications to the Cambridgeshire structure plan. The modifications are illogical and fail lamentably to meet local or national needs. I shall outline some of the objections in brief.
My hon. Friend the Minister's proposals amount to a vast new settlement to the west of Cambridge involving out-of-town shopping. The result will be a new town of 14,000 people, which is equivalent to Huntingdon or St. Ives in the county. That is sheer madness. The object of fresh development, as the Department of the Environment and everyone else agrees, is to provide housing and employment opportunities for the north of Cambridgeshire. The west development will merely attract yet more commuters working in London. I have nothing against people living in Cambridge and working in London because, after all, that is what I do. However, it is contrary to the strategy that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wants. It will do nothing to ease the problems of people working in and around Cambridge, especially to the north in the Fens which is where the problem really lies. By contrast, the panel advising the Minister supports the view that development to the south of Cambridge should be restrained. Paradoxically, that will be the effect if the modifications are confirmed.
The roads of Cambridgeshire are very dangerous. The A45 to the west is as dangerous as any. There have been many horrific accidents and crashes there during the time that I have been a Member of Parliament for the area. A new vast development such as that proposed could only

make matters worse and increase the sum of human misery. That will be exacerbated particularly as commercial travel increases in 1992 and vehicles seek to gain access to the M11.
The important regeneration of the villages of Papworth Everard and Caldecote, where new housing is already under construction or planned, will be threatened by the new development. I am informed that in the village of Bourn there are drainage problems and that flooding could occur in Bourn Brook as a result of the development. That is according to the most recent information from the Anglian water authority. To add to all that, three sites of special scientific interest would be damaged.
Those arguments and many more are set out in more detail in the response sent to my right hon. Friend by the new settlement action group involving 14 villages. I beg the Government to study the response with great care. The important point is that there has been no consultation or opportunity for anyone to consider the vast new alteration and all its implications. That is contrary to my idea of local democracy and the freedom to which the Government subscribe.
The proposal for the huge new settlement on the A45 west of Cambridge can be summed up by saying that it is incompatible with the strategy accepted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his Department. It will be devastating to the amenities of the existing population. It will increase the danger to life and limb, to say nothing of congestion on the A45. It will do nothing to meet the new housing demand generated from the Cambridge area and there has been no opportunity for those affected to make their case. In short, the proposal is stark, staring crazy.
I shall not be merely negative tonight, strong though my arguments are. I recognise the need for housing in the county and I believe that there is a solution. Development to the east of the A45—and I have in mind a site near Nine Mile hill—would conform to the strategy. Employment opportunities are to be found to the east of Cambridge, not to the west. All roads out of Cambridge are operating to full capacity except the 1303 leading east. The area to the west is more costly than the east for services and education needs can also be more easily met.

Mr. James Paice: As my hon. Friend knows, Nine Mile hill is in my constituency. Does he agree that already a large number of people commute to Cambridge from further north and the Fens? The Fenland district has been allocated only 7,150 houses under the Secretary of State's proposals, although it wants 10,000. Would it not be more sensible to push the proposed development a little further north into the Fens, where it is wanted by the local councils and where the prosperity that it would bring is needed?

Sir Anthony Grant: It is quite true that that would be another alternative. Indeed, a development to the north would be exactly the same distance away from Cambridge as a development to the west. It was included in the original structure plan, which took two years of consultation and deliberation to develop. The whole point was muddled by the panel that has reported to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It is certainly an alternative to the current unsatisfactory proposal.
Not only do I and my hon. Friend vehemently oppose the proposed scheme but the 14 villages immediately


affected and the whole of the Cambridgeshire county council, Conservatives, Labour and Democrats, are opposed to the proposal.
The whole planning problem is nationwide, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State knows from the strong representations from my hon. Friends. I am a strong supporter of the Government and I have been a Member of Parliament for many years. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister cannot give any answers tonight, but I want him, my right hon. Friend and the Government to be under no illusions. They are sitting on a keg of dynamite throughout the south and east of our nation, which will explode with devastating results unless the Government heed the wishes of the people they serve. I pray that Ministers will heed my words tonight and think again on the subject of Cambridgeshire.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) for the helpful and constructive way in which, as always, he deployed his arguments. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice), whose contribution was a gloss on my hon. Friend's speech. The fact that they were not ad idem shows the problems that the Government face in solving difficult planning issues.
This is a one-sided debate in two senses. First, all speakers are on the Conservative Benches, although that is not unusual. Secondly, I cannot tonight answer the points that have been raised. All that I can do is assure my hon. Friends that their submissions and arguments will be taken into account as relevant evidence on the structure plan proposed modifications. I congratulate my hon. Friends on their excellent timing. Ministers will be considering responses to the recent consultation within the next few weeks.
Perhaps in the time available I might briefly remind the House of how the structure plan process operates. It is a long and often painstaking process, but it is designed to produce the right conclusion, and certainly to enable everybody to put their point of view and to have it properly considered.
Structure plans provide the necessary framework for development control and the co-ordination and direction of development. They give a general indication of where development should be located and its size. The end product of the development plan process should be a clear and concise statement of policies and proposals for development which strike a satisfactory balance in land use between immediate availability for development, provision for future contingencies, and conservation. It is essential that the policies contained in an approved plan are closely monitored and kept up to date to cater for the needs of the county.
The existing Cambridgeshire structure plan was approved in 1980. Since then, Cambridgeshire has had to face several significant changes. They are: increasing

pressure for more new housing, especially in the Cambridge area and the Huntingdonshire towns and villages of the Ouse valley; the expansion of Stansted airport; the growth of high technology industries in the Cambridge area; and major changes in transport, such as the completion of the M11 and the A45 Cambridge northern bypass.
To respond to those challenges, the county council submitted proposals for a replacement plan. An examination in public was held in October 1987. That process involved people being able to put their views to a public inquiry. The panel's report was presented to the Secretary of State in January 1988.
As my hon. Friends will know, the Secretary of State announced proposed modifications to the plan in July 1988. Those modifications were the subject of consultation. The consultation period was originally to expire at the end of September, but, because of the postal dispute, it was extended until the end of October. As I have said, the points that have been raised tonight will count as points raised in the consultation.
We hope that, by the beginning of next year—probably in January—it will be possible to come forward with our conclusions on what is obviously a difficult issue, as such planning issues normally are.

Sir Antony Buck: I have a loose connection with the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) has made a devastating case. Will my hon. Friend the Minister assure the House that what has been said this evening will be taken fully into consideration when the report is finally made?

Mr. Chope: I am able to give an unequivocal assurance that everything that has been said this evening will be taken into account as evidence in the case. That does not mean that, when the conclusions are announced, they will necessarily be word for word what my hon. Friends wish to hear. Obviously, I cannot prejudge the matter. I am at great pains this evening not to say anything that could be taken to demonstrate that we have already reached a conclusion on any of the issues.
This has been a well-timed debate. My hon. Friends have been able to make their points, and they will be taken fully into account. I cannot say more than that. Obviously, the points having been made in such a way, they will carry considerable weight.
The problems of reconciling the need to increase the number of houses in Cambridgeshire with the problems of where to locate them are not easily resolved. We shall have to reach a final conclusion over the next few weeks. It is as frustrating for me as it is for my hon. Friends to know that we cannot take the debate any further this evening, but I assure the House that we shall reach a decision as soon as possible.
Once again I congratulate my hon. Friend on initiating the debate and on getting the timing absolutely right. In his own inimitable style, he ensured that the arguments were cogently put.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.